Xxxxxxxxx, J. The case involves a disputed easement and whether a developer of two adjacent properties in Columbia County reserved usage rights in a riverfront common area in his first development, which he later conveyed to purchasers in his second development. The trial court granted summary judgment against the developer after concluding that the easement he retained did not include a right to use the common area. We now reverse and remand because the scope of the easement retained by the developer is ambiguous on its face and was ill-suited for resolution by summary judgment.
Xxxxxxxxx, J. The Syringe Driver, Oxford University Press, Fourth edition. Oxford 2020.
Xxxxxxxxx, J. Wskazania do stosowania metariałów szklano- jonomerowych, łączących i złoŜonych, techniki zakładania i efekty kliniczne. Cz. II.
Xxxxxxxxx, J. Krupińska A.,Xxxxxx J.: (Inserty-nowa metoda wypełniania ubytków materiałami kompozytowymi).35 th Annuai Meeting of the Continental European Division of the International Association for Dental Research.France Montpellier 23-25 september i 999. (Indirect/direct/inserts-a new method of filling cavities by composites.)
Xxxxxxxxx, J. The Applicant is a condominium corporation. The Applicant has a property manager that carries out the day to day operations and maintenance of the condominium. The Respondent is a natural gas supplier. In May 2008 a representative of the property manager entered into a fixed-price contract with the Respondent for the supply of natural gas. Unlike regular corporations, where an employee or agent can contract on behalf of the corporation, con- dominium corporations cannot contract unless there is a resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing (or ratifying) the contract. In this case, the Applicant's property manager had no authorization and the Board never ratified the fixed-price contract. This application seeks a declaration that the fixed-price contract was void. The Applicant also seeks conse- quential relief, including damages representing the difference between the price it paid under the fixed-price contract and the price it would have paid if it had entered into a contract with a different supplier. 2 The Application was commenced in September 2012. The Respondent says that the claim was known to the Re- spondent at some point between July and November 2009. The Respondent says that the claim, therefore, is barred by sections 4 and 5 of the Limitations Xxx 0000, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B. I agree with the Respondent. The Application will be dismissed. FACTS 3 Prodded by the Applicant's residents, in July 2009 the Board of Directors decided to look into costs of utilities. On July 15, 2009 a representative of the Applicant's property manager contacted the Respondent to inquire about the fixed price contract.
Xxxxxxxxx, J. Well did the servant or agent have a defence under the Rules as they originally stood? XX XXXX QC: That was the unclarity that was resolved by this. XXXXXXXXX X: 5 So they were putting that in and then making an exception for conduct that would be barratry, is that what you‟re saying? XX XXXX QC: No Your Honour. My understanding is that what IV bis was designed to do 10 was to clarify the position of servants who were sued. It was to make clear that first the IV bis provisions didn‟t affect the carrier‟s position and related only to the position of servants or agents. Second, that if they were sued they had the same benefits and entitlements that were available to the carrier and in four, like the carrier –
Xxxxxxxxx, J. Just before we move away from the travaux, unless you're planning to go back to them? XX XXXX QC: 25 I know I owe Your Honour a response on where was barratry excluded. XXXXXXXXX X: Well, yes, it‟s just that I‟ve only dipped into these, but about page 25 – yes, page 258, they‟re dealing with barratry, which evidently was in the list in 30 Article IV 2 – XX XXXX QC: Yes.
Xxxxxxxxx, J. Was this the case where they had the hatch open so they could do some painting while they were in port and rain got in and damaged some iron – XX XXXX QC: Yes. XXXXXXXXX X: – or steel? XX XXXX QC: I‟m pretty sure that‟s the facts, Your Honour. Yes. “Hatches were left open, tin plates – 10 TIPPING J: Tin. XX XXXX QC: – were exposed to rain”. And essentially what Lord Justice Xxxxx said – and 15 his judgment‟s not terribly long, it‟s, if Your Honours wish to go to it it‟s in the Volume 1 of the Appellant‟s bundle under tab 14.
Xxxxxxxxx, J. Sep. Sci. vol. 26, pp. 251-260, 2003). SPME provides a simple way of extracting and concentrating of target analytes, and we believe that it will be ideally suited for a hand-held unit due to its small size. The Contractor will first set up a bench-top apparatus and conduct studies to determine the preconcentration and separation capability of different types of SPME fibers (i.e., fibers with different coatings). A preconcentration unit will be incorporated to the hand-held unit in the second phase.
Xxxxxxxxx, J. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, X. X. Xxxxxxx, III, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxx X. Xxxxxxx.
