The Respondent must familiarise itself with the relevant provisions of the RTI Act dealing with the requirements for disclosure of information by agencies, and the grounds on which access to information may be refused.
The Respondent. 34. The Respondent’s submissions, in essence, may be summarized as follows: - In the Respondent’s view the three legal questions for analysis are: (1) whether Article 5 of the Termination Agreement is a “penalty clause”, (2) if it is, is it valid and is the amount specified therein due under the applicable Swiss law, and (3) if the clause is valid and the amount is due, is the latter subject to reduction for being excessive? - The Respondent considers that the DRC judges were correct in their analysis that Article 5 of the Termination Agreement was not intended to penalize the Player, but rather to give rise to an obligation that was already established in the underlying Contract, namely three monthly salaries; - The negotiations leading to the Termination Agreement made it clear that the Player would not give up amounts the he considered were owed to him under the Contract if the agreed-upon payment schedule was not respected, which resulted in the wording of Article 5. The amount payable thereunder was a condition sine qua non for the execution of the Termination Agreement; - The fact that at the time of conclusion of the Termination Agreement the Appellant had failed to pay the Respondent more than three months’ worth of salary meant that the Respondent had the right to terminate the Contract with just cause and claim the entire amount owed to him at the time (totaling twelve monthly salaries or EUR 156,000). Instead, he demonstrated good faith by agreeing to payment of three salaries or EUR 39,000 in the event of delayed payment; - The Appellant, having negotiated the clause in Article 5 of the Termination Agreement, is estopped from claiming that the clause is void according to the principle of venire contra factum proprium; - Finally, even if the clause is to be considered a penalty clause, it is still valid given its proportionate and reasonable amount under Swiss law and CAS case law; - Article 160 para. 2 SCO requires that performance be expressly accepted without reservation. The Appellant has failed to meet its burden of proof in this respect as it has not adduced any evidence supporting its allegation that the Respondent had accepted performance; - The amount is not subject to reduction for being excessive in light of its reasonable and proportionate nature well within the bounds of CAS case law. The relevant test being that the amount of a penalty clause needs to offend the sense of justice and equity to be deemed excessive, this is not the ca...
The Respondent. Applicant to receive the balance of US $ 20, 000-00 of the sum deposited in the interest bearing account, and accrued interest thereon from the 21st January, 2004, to date ofwithdrawal.
The Respondent. 16. The Respondent commenced his employment in the securities industry in 2001. He worked for three Member firms before commencing employment with Credential in 2008. He remained employed with Credential until August 13, 2010 when he was dismissed for cause as a result of the matters described herein. He is not currently employed in a registered capacity in the securities industry.
The Respondent. 2, 1. FC Köln, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned compensation.
The Respondent. 3. Respondent Insilco is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 000 Xxxxx Xxxxx X, Xxx 0000, Xxxxxx, Xxxx, 00000.
The Respondent together with any entity that is an Affiliate directly or indirectly controlled by the Respondent, and more
The Respondent. 6. The Respondent is presently registered as a mutual fund dealer in all Canadian provinces except Saskatchewan and as an Exempt Market Dealer in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Ontario.
The Respondent. 35. The Respondent charged the Complainants similar commissions to a cash equivalent (i.e., GICs) and therefore did not enjoy nor was he motivated by additional profit to himself.
The Respondent. Xxx Xxxxxx, hereby grants consent to random inspection of the attic area of this property to ensure that it is not being used for sleeping.
