Assumptions and Limitations. 4.1. Entrust personnel shall not be available or on stand-by for non-Entrust tasks
4.2. All work to be performed during regular business hours.
Assumptions and Limitations. In order for a twin study to be valid, some key assumptions must be met. The most important and perhaps contentious being that to the extent that twins have a shared familial environment, MZ and DZ twins, on average, share their environments to the same degree. This is known as the equal environments assumption (EEA). This can be interpreted as both MZ and DZ twins are exposed to the same (often unknown) environmental factors that may contribute to the phenotypic variance. If MZ interact with their environment in a way that is more similar to the environmental interaction that DZ twins experience, then any estimate of the genetic effect on the phenotype being studied is likely to be inflated. Conversely, where the opposite is true, i.e. DZ twins systematically experience more similar environmental influences than MZ twins with respect to a specific phenotype, the genetic contribution will be underestimated. Violation of the EEA can occur at pre- and post-term – in utero monochorionic, monoamniotic MZ twins share the same placenta and amniotic sac. One argument is that the co-localisation of both MZ foetuses confers a more similar intrauterine environment than the majority of DZ twins, which do not share a placenta. Conversely, competition between monochorionic, monoamniotic MZ foetuses for resources may drive intrauterine differences such as those experienced in twin–twin transfusion syndrome (Xxxx et al., 2009). Differences in environmental interaction between MZ and DZ twin pairs may continue from childhood into adulthood, where perceived zygosity may influence behaviour and preferences. MZ and DZ twins may have identical or opposite, for example, dietary habits and physical activity levels as they or their parents (unconsciously) augment or lessen, similarity between them. Another assumption of the classical twin study is that the total observed phenotypic variance must be the same for MZ and DZ twins. Equal variances for MZ and DZ twins indicates the two groups represent a single homogenous group. Twins are assumed to be representative of the population from which they are sampled from, so that inferences made about the relative contributions to the phenotype can be generalised. In practical terms, this means for continuous phenotypes, such as height or weight, twins and randomly selected individuals from the population should have the same means and variances if the sample size collected is sufficiently large. Similarly, to make claims about a genetic...
Assumptions and Limitations. We have assumed: (i) the genuineness of all signatures; (ii) the legal capacity of all individuals; (iii) the genuineness and authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals; and (iv) the conformity to original documents of all documents submitted to us as certified, photocopied or facsimiled copies. The opinions expressed below are given as of the date of this letter and are not prospective. We disclaim any obligation to advise the addressees or any other person of any change in law or any fact which may come or be brought to our attention after the date of this letter. We have assumed that the covenants, acknowledgements, certifications, representations and warranties of each Subscriber set forth in its respective Subscription Agreement are true and correct and have been performed as the case may be, as of the date hereof. We have assumed that:
Assumptions and Limitations. With KML’s acknowledgement and agreement as provided for in the Engagement Agreement, TD Securities has relied upon the accuracy, completeness, and fair presentation of all data and other information obtained by it from public sources or provided to it by KML or its representatives, or otherwise obtained by TD Securities. The Fairness Opinion is premised and conditional upon such accuracy, completeness and fair presentation and there being no misrepresentation (as defined in the Securities Act) of the foregoing data and other information. TD Securities has assumed that there is no information relating to the business, operations and assets of the Acquired Entities or KML, or their respective affiliates, that could reasonably be expected to be material to the Fairness Opinion that has not been disclosed or made available to TD Securities. Subject to the exercise of professional judgment, and except as expressly described herein, TD Securities has not attempted to verify independently the accuracy, completeness or fair presentation of any of the foregoing data and other information. With respect to the budgets, forecasts, projections or estimates provided to TD Securities and used in its analyses, TD Securities notes that projecting future results is inherently subject to uncertainty. TD Securities has assumed, however, that such budgets, forecasts, projections and estimates were prepared using the assumptions identified therein which TD Securities has been advised are (or were at the time of preparation and continue to be), in the opinion of KML, reasonable in the circumstances. TD Securities expresses no independent view as to the reasonableness of such budgets, forecasts, projections and estimates or the assumptions on which they are based. TD Securities was not engaged to review and has not reviewed any of the legal, tax or accounting aspects of the Transaction. TD Securities has assumed that the Transaction complies with all applicable laws. Senior officers of KML, on behalf of KML, have represented to TD Securities in the Certificate, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief after due inquiry: (i) that KML has no information or knowledge of any facts public or otherwise not specifically provided to TD Securities relating to the Acquired Entities which would reasonably be expected to affect materially the Fairness Opinion; (ii) with the exception of forecasts, projections or estimates referred to in subparagraph (iv) below, the information...
Assumptions and Limitations. 1. This scope of work is to be considered conceptual to allow the City to better understand how the project can be delivered most efficiently. Final engineering and architectural design services will be provided in a future scope of work. June 21, 2024
2. Preliminary designs and plans to be completed with the foregoing scope of work will be advanced to approximately 10%-15% of completion for each item. JDE will work to complete the above scope of work in a reasonable, timely manner according to the project and funding needs. An xxxxxxx effort will be made to complete the services within owner’s time constraints. The foregoing scope of work for planning and conceptual design services can be completed for a lump sum fee of $100,000. Progress payments will be invoiced monthly throughout the project. Any adjustments to the scope of work can be completed for a negotiated lump sum fee or according to CA & JDE’s standard hourly rates.
Assumptions and Limitations. All project meetings will be held virtually or in the Galveston area.
Assumptions and Limitations. Assumptions: Limitations:
Assumptions and Limitations. Certain assumptions have been made herein, including the following: • Subcontracted effort to complete studies pertinent to the CEQA analyses is anticipated to be completed by the Project Proponent, including quantification of air quality impacts related to BAAQMD permit applications, and the scope of work to be determined for required upgrades to the marine terminal and onshore facilities. It is assumed that the results of these efforts will be provided as inputs for the CEQA analyses. The need WesPac Energy-Pittsburg Terminal Project April 29, 2011 for subcontracted effort for the evaluation of marine transportation impacts will also be determined during the CEQA analyses. • The environmental areas listed above for in-depth analysis in the EIR are based on an assumed scoping during the IS process. The actual areas to be evaluated evaluations. in the EIR (post-IS) will be determined during the CEQA • Review times assumed in the Project Schedule (Table 1) are suggested. Actual review times and the overall project schedule will be determined by the City; significant changes to the Project Schedule may also affect costs.
Assumptions and Limitations. For the purposes of this opinion letter, we have, with your concurrence, and without independent investigation, assumed the following: o the genuineness of all signatures on, and the authenticity and completeness of, the Documents and any other documents reviewed by us; o the conformity to original documents of the Documents and any other documents reviewed by us as true, certified, confirmed or photostatic copies (including facsimiles); o the identity, capacity and authority of any person acting or purporting to act in a representative capacity or as a public official; o the accuracy and completeness of any information provided to us by any office of public record; o the corporate existence and capacity of Marubeni, and the due authorization, execution and delivery of the Documents to which Marubeni is a party, by Marubeni. The opinions expressed in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 below, are based solely and entirely upon Certificates of Good Standing issued by the British Columbia Registrar of Companies dated May -, 2004 and a Certificate of Status issued by the Alberta Registrar of Corporations dated May -, 2004, copies of which are attached to this opinion. The opinion expressed in paragraph 7, below, is given without independent investigation and is based solely and entirely on the certificate of the individual who is the President of each of the Corporations, and our review of records which we have prepared and currently retain in our active files and which would likely bring to our attention the existence of actions, proceedings, investigations or claims against or affecting the Corporations or the property of the Corporations. OPINIONS Based and relying upon our examinations, but subject to the assumptions, limitations and qualifications set out in this letter, in our opinion:
Assumptions and Limitations. GHD has prepared this proposed scope of work and estimated costs based on the review of most of the project documents provided by the City, and based on the following limitations and assumptions: • According to the City’s Request for Proposal (RFP), GHD is limiting the geographic area addressed by this scope of services to the areas identified as Area A and Area B on the northern part of the former Farmland site. • The City and State agency will provide timely review, commentary and approvals of requests for input on all agency submittals or changes in scope, as needed. • GHD assumes no additional field data will be necessary and is not proposing to perform any field sampling or testing under this scope of work. The City will continue to perform all routine sampling, operation and maintenance associated with ongoing compliance activities. • GHD assumes that we will have unrestricted access to the Site to make any and all Site visits to observe and inspect all portions of the property and remediation activities as such visits relate to the scope of services. • All topographic survey information is assumed complete and accurate and no additional topographic survey data or fieldwork will be necessary. • Bench and field scale pilot testing are not proposed under this scope of work. • GHD assumes the City will prepare all reports required under the Order and provide GHD a timely opportunity to review and comment on each report prior to submittal. • Uncontrollable risk includes operation of new rural water supply well field immediately down gradient from the Site. • All draft and final deliverables will be submitted in electronic PDF format.
