Microsoft Corporation. By (sign): By (sign): Name (print): Name (print): Title: Title: Date: September 27, 2005 Date: September 27, 2005 Microsoft/IXI Mobile, Inc. Proprietary and Confidential
Microsoft Corporation. It is understood and agreed that ownership of less than 1% of the issued and outstanding shares of any of the above entities shall not constitute a breach of this provision.
Microsoft Corporation. During the period beginning on the Amendment Effective Date and continuing through one (1) year after the exercise of the Option to Purchase, in no event may Xxxxxxx.xxx license Trio on a stand- alone basis to Microsoft Corporation. During the period beginning on the Amendment Effective Date and continuing through one (1) year after the exercise of the Option to Purchase, in the event Xxxxxxx.xxx licenses Trio as integrated with Xxxxxxx.xxx products, Xxxxxxx.xxx shall pay Company twenty-five percent (25%) of Net License Revenue."
Microsoft Corporation. In no event may Xxxxxxx.xxx license --------------------- Trio on a stand-alone basis to Microsoft Corporation during the one-year period beginning on the exercise of the Option Period. In the event Xxxxxxx.xxx licenses Trio as integrated with Xxxxxxx.xxx products, Xxxxxxx.xxx shall pay Company twenty-five percent (25%) of Net License Revenue.
Microsoft Corporation s/ Stan Xxxxxxx ----------------------------- By Stan Xxxxxxx ----------------------------- Name (Print) General Manager ----------------------------- Title March 14, 2001 ----------------------------- Date STARTEK, INC. /s/ E. Presxxx Xxxxxx, Xx. ----------------------------- By
Microsoft Corporation. 85 the Supreme Court of Canada describes the commonality requirement as the central notion of a class proceeding which is that individuals who have litigation concerns in common ought to be able to resolve those common concerns in one central proceeding rather than through an inefficient multitude of repetitive proceedings. [213] All members of the class must benefit from the successful prosecution of the action, 83 Xxxxxxx v. Toronto (City), 2001 SCC 68 at para. 18. 84 Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. x. Xxxxxx, 2001 SCC 46 at paras. 39 and 40. 85 2013 SCC 57 at para. 106. although not necessarily to the same extent. The answer to a question raised by a common issue for the plaintiff must be capable of extrapolation, in the same manner, to each member of the class.86 [214] An issue is not a common issue if its resolution is dependent upon individual findings of fact that would have to be made for each class member.87 Common issues cannot be dependent upon findings which will have to be made at individual trials, nor can they be based on assumptions that circumvent the necessity for individual inquiries.88 [215] Commonality is a substantive fact that exists on the evidentiary record or it does not, and commonality is not to be semantically manufactured by overgeneralizing; i.e., by framing the issue in general terms that will ultimately break down into issues to be resolved by individual inquiries for each class member.89 In Xxxxxx v. British Columbia,90 Chief Justice XxXxxxxxx stated that an issue would not satisfy the common issues test if it was framed in overly broad terms; she stated: [….] It would not serve the ends of either fairness or efficiency to certify an action on the basis of issues that are common only when stated in the most general terms. Inevitably such an action would ultimately break down into individual proceedings. That the suit had initially been certified as a class action could only make the proceeding less fair and less efficient. [216] However, the commonality requirement does not mean that an identical answer is necessary for all the members of the class, or even that the answer must benefit each of them to the same extent; it is enough that the answer to the question does not give rise to conflicting interests among the members; success for one member must not result in failure for another.91 [217] The common issue criterion presents a low bar.92 An issue can be a common issue even if it makes up a very limited aspect of...
Microsoft Corporation. SC000690 for maintenance services for IT Professionals IT Pro Annual Phone Support. Fiscal Impact: $1,999.00 included in the 2017/18 UGF budget.
Microsoft Corporation. SC000168 for license renewal of Microsoft Imagine software. Fiscal Impact: $799.00 included in the 2016/17 UGF budget.
Microsoft Corporation. C14136 for annual renewal of Microsoft Premier Support Services. Fiscal Impact: $21,335.00 included in the 2015/16 UGF budget
Microsoft Corporation. C14153 for hourly rates for support services. Fiscal Impact: $2,654.00 included in the 2015/16 UGF budget.
