Issue 3. Termination of a commercial agency agreement • Unregistered v registered agreements. • The cost of termination - tread with caution. Bahrain The Commercial Agency Law in Bahrain • The Commercial Agency Law applicable in Bahrain was enacted in 1992 with the latest amendments issued in 2002. • Commercial Agency defined under Bahraini Law as the: “Representation of the Principal” in the distribution of goods and products, displaying them for sale or trade in exchange for profit or commission, the provision of services of any kind whatsoever including land, shipping or air transport agencies, travel and tourism agencies, services offices, insurance, printing, publishing, press and advertising agencies and firms, or any other commercial activities. • Exclusion: No agency for companies which the State entities procure weapons or military equipment.
Issue 3. What are the surface effects from underground mining of the LBA tract using room and pillar mining methods, possibly including pillar removal (retreat) mining? 26
Issue 3. What are the surface effects from underground mining of the LBA tract using room and pillar mining methods, possibly including pillar removal (retreat) mining? The geographic scope of analysis associated with this issue is the LBA tract (OKNM 127509), a private coal tract to the north of the LBA tract, and the XxXxxxxxx lease tract (OKNM 108097) to the west of the LBA tract (Map 4). This area was chosen as the geographic scope of analysis because it is the total contiguous area of potential surface effects from underground mining activities including the LBA tract. The temporal scope of analysis is approximately 30-plus years. Although mining the LBA tract is expected to take approximately 8-16 years under the Proposed Action, surface effects as a result of underground mining can occur after mining operations cease. Additionally, mining of the three contiguous coal tracts that make up the geographic scope of analysis are anticipated to occur over the 30 year timeframe. Mining the LBA tract using room and pillar methods, possibly including pillar removal (retreat) mining, could result in subsidence, a surface effect of concern in this analysis. Subsidence is a process characterized by downward displacement of surface material caused by natural phenomena such as removal of underground fluids, natural consolidation, or dissolution of underground minerals, or by man- made activity such as underground mining.
Examples of Issue 3 in a sentence
Historical NotesDerived from Virginia Register Volume 23, Issue 3, eff.
Historical NotesDerived from Virginia Register Volume 21, Issue 3, eff.
Historical Notes Derived from Virginia Register Volume 19, Issue 3 and Volume 19, Issue 9, eff.
Historical Notes Derived from Virginia Register Volume 19, Issue 3, eff.
April 1, 1994; amended, Virginia Register Volume 12, Issue 3, eff.
More Definitions of Issue 3
Issue 3. The workgroup recommended that phosphorus efficiencies be set 5% lower than sediment efficiencies as a general rule to account for dissolved phosphorus losses not associated with soil losses, unless the scientific research indicates differently. o UMD supports the recommendation that TP efficiencies be set lower than TSS efficiencies; however they suggest that the TP efficiencies be lowered by 10% rather than by 5%. They favor 10% because it implies that there is a significant difference and because it does not indicate a greater level of precision than we have. However, they will defer to the workgroup regarding what percentage is used. o Some members voiced concern that subtracting 10% from TP will affect some BMPs more than others. For example, if the original efficiency is 40% and it is lowered to 30% than it is only reduced by 25%, whereas if the original efficiency is 20% and it is lowered to 10% than it will be reduced by 50%.
Issue 3. The rule changes would eliminate public participation in the review and assessment of exercises before a licensing board. Commission Response: While it is true that the rule changes will have the likely effect of limiting litigation of the success of exercises in licensing hearings, it is the Commission’8 view that such assessments are not necessary to make the kind of predictive finding on emergency planning called for by the regulations prior to license issuance. The substantive emergency planning issues now being litigated in license hearings are largely focused on the 16 planning standards found in 10 CFR 50.47(b). These planning standards are unchanged by the rule changes and do not, in themselves, require a successful exercise. Thus the Commission does not regard the exclusion of the exercise The level of risk associated with low-power operation has been estimated by the staff in several recent operating license cases: Diablo Canyon, Uocket Nos. 275-OL, 323-OL, San Xxxxxx, Docket n?8’^ 61~OL’ ^®^-OL, and XxXxxxx, Docket Nos. 373- JJL, 374-OL. In each case the Safety Evaluation eport concluded that low-power risk is several oraers of magnitude less than full-power risk. These dings support the general conclusion in the text number °f factors associated with low-power foil powerlmP y great^y rec*uced risk compare with generally from the Licensing Board process as affecting in any fundamental way the manner of public participation on prelicensing emergency planning issues. ¡Finally, the rule changes do not preclude public observation of and participation in the exercises themselves (to the extent consistent with the rules and policies of the Commission and the objectives of the exercise) and in the review and assessment critique meetings held after the exercise. The rule changes clarify that the emergency preparedness exercises are not required for a Licensing Board, Appeal Board, or Commission licensing decision. Exercises will still be required before actual power above 5% and commercial operation. The conduct of full-scaie exercises early enough in the licensing process to permit the outcome of the exercises to be fully litigated at the hearing is premature. Such exercises are best held at a later time, when the operating and management staff of the plant—who are central figures in an exercise—are in place and trained in emergency functions. The Commission believes that, while the actual exercise is not an issue in a hearing under these rules (except...
Issue 3. VIOLATION OF BMC SECTIONS 2.12.280.B AND G 18 17. According to BMC Section 2.12.280, all contributions received, including 19 nonmonetary (in-kind) contributions3, must be disclosed on required campaign statements, to 20 include the following information: 21 “B. The total amount of contributions received during the period covered by the 22 campaign statement from persons who have given fifty dollars or more;…
Issue 3. What is the true meaning of Clause 3 of the byelaws and whether the Defendants breached it? [59] Clause 3 of the byelaws states as follows: “No trade manufacture business or commercial undertaking (other than long and short term rentals of condominium units) shall be permitted in any condominium unit and no condominium unit shall be used for any purpose other than residential purposes. Rental/leases for less than three (3) months are not permitted.” [Emphasis added] [60] Learned Counsel Xx. Xxxxxx spent a considerable bit of time both in his oral and written submissions in his attempt to persuade the Court that there is no such three month limitation on the Unit: see paragraphs 24 to 41 of his written submissions. [61] That being said, I agree with Counsel that words are to be given their natural meanings and, if they are plain and clear, there is no need for other aids of interpretation. The meaning of words is a question of fact; the effect of words is a question of law: Chatenay v Brazilian Submarine Telegraph Co. (1891) QB 79 at 85, per Xxxxxxx XX. [62] I also agree with learned Counsel Xx. Xxxxxx that statutes and documents have the same rules of construction. Both statutes and documents are to be read as a whole. The intention is primarily to be sought in the words used in the statute itself, which must, if they are plain and unambiguous, be applied as they stand. In Xxxx x Xxx (1871) L.R.6 C.P. 365 at 371, Xxxxxx X stated that: “No doubt the general rule is that the language of an Act is to be read according to its ordinary grammatical construction unless so reading it would entail some absurdity, repugnancy, or injustice…. But I utterly repudiate the notion that it is competent to a judge to modify the language of an Act of Parliament in order to bring it in accordance with his views as to what is right or reasonable.” [63] In my opinion, there is nothing clearer that Clause 3 of the byelaws. It means exactly what it says: Rental/leases for less than three (3) months are not permitted.” [64] Having come to the finding that, on a balance of probabilities, I prefer the evidence of the witnesses for the Plaintiff to that of the Defendants, I further find that the Defendants have breached Clause 3 of the byelaws of the Declaration. Issue 4: Whether the Defendants have acted contumely by continuing to breach Clause 3 of the byelaws despite Injunction? [65] On 8 November 2016, at an inter partes hearing, this Court granted an interim injunction restraini...
Issue 3. (The Second Step in Xxxxx): Adverse Impacts
Issue 3. Does the Defendant owe the sum of $2,278,912.86 to the Claimant in unpaid invoices for the period of June, 2007 to December, 2009? The contentions of the Defendant are inherently more probable: [16] The Court does not find that there were any inconsistencies between the Claimant’s pleaded case and his evidence on this issue. The Claimant pleaded that on the 12th January, 2010, he delivered to the Defendant a Statement of Accounts covering all transactions between the 9th June, 2007 and the 15th December, 2009, which totalled $2,278,912.86 and that the Defendant, in breach of contract, has failed to pay the balance due17. The Claimant’s case was maintained in its witness statements. Further, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx stated that she was the person who prepared the statement of accounts on behalf of the 17 Paras 8 & 9 of the Amended Statement of Case. Claimant and sent it to the Defendant18. Under cross-examination, neither witness contradicted themselves or the pleadings and maintained that the Claimant issued a statement of accounts in the said amount which remains outstanding. However, other evidence was revealed under cross-examination that the Defendant submitted undermined the inherent probability of the Claimant’s case as follows:
Issue 3. A contract in which bifurcation between material and services are given would still amount to divisible contract Facts: ◼ Xxxxxxxx was engaged in execution of turnkey contract. The agreement entered into by assessee was divided in to consideration for performance of services and consideration for material ◼ Department raised demand on service portion under the taxable category of Consulting Engineer’s services ◼ Xxxxxxxx contested the demand stating that contract is indivisible and only value of contract is divisible ◼ XXXXXX decided against the assessee in an ex-parte decision (2008-TIOL- 1057-CESTAT). On filing a SLP in this respect, Apex Court referred it back to CESTAT 2008(9)STRJ29 ◼ CESTAT vide 2008-TIOL-1880-CESTAT-DEL refer the matter to larger bench and held following: Works Contract – Service Tax – Issues