Breach of. ARTICLE 26
Breach of. Article 38.1 shall be deemed a fundamental breach of this Agreement.
Breach of. SLA In case the Supplier does not meet the service levels mentioned in Section C.4 of this Appendix & Section G5 of SRS document, for three (3) continuous time-periods as specified in the relevant clause, the Purchaser will treat it as a case of breach of Service Level Agreement. The following steps will be taken in such a case:-
Breach of financial covenants The Parent Guarantor fails at any time to comply with the financial covenants set out in Clause 11 of the Parent Guarantee.
Breach of. 36. If there is any breach of this Lease Agreement by RESIDENT, or any nonco pliance with any of the terms LEASE hereof by RESIDENT, XXXXXX may terminate RESIDENT’S right of tenancy hereunder. Unless otherwise provided herein, and with the exception of notice of nonpayment of rent and notice of termination for violent or dangerous behavior (Section 34), XXXXXX may deliver a written notice to the RESIDENT specifying the acts and omissions constituting the breach and stating that the tenancy under this Lease Agreement will terminate in accordance with applicable law. If RESIDENT’S right of tenancy is terminated pursuant to this section, then RESIDENT shall remain responsible for any rent or other amounts due to LESSOR to the full extent allowed by applicable law. Termination of RESIDENT’S right of tenancy by XXXXXX for any breach or noncomp iance shall not act as a release of RESIDENT’S obligations under this Lease. If RESIDENT’S breach involves the repair of physical damages to the premises, RESIDENT shall not proceed with repair of any part of said damages without the specific p ior written consent of XXXXXX. Any repairs made by RESIDENT without XXXXXX’S specific written consent shall be grounds for immediate termination of the tenancy created by this Lease Agreement. EARLY XXXX-
Breach of. ARTICLE 2
Breach of. Article 7.1 In the event of any Supplier's breach of its representations, warranties and undertakings made under Article 7.1 of this Contract, Supplier shall be liable to, at NF's (or NF Affiliate's, as the case may be) option:
Breach of. Contract (Fixed Fee On Out-of-Scope Work and for the Realization of Risks NNSA Assumed); (4) Breach of Contract (Request for Equitable Adjustment Preparation Costs); and (5) Declaratory Relief (Request for Equitable Adjustment Preparation Costs). This case, docket no. 16-950C, was the first in a series of actions that MOX Services filed under the same contract. The cases were filed separately in this Court because of individual claims that MOX Services had submitted to the contracting officer, and because of the NNSA’s issuance of individual contracting officer final decisions. On May 15, 2018, the Court ordered the consolidation of these cases for further proceedings and trial. The present controversy concerns cross-motions that the parties filed under Rules 12 and 56 of the Court. On December 27, 2017, MOX Services filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding Counts II and V (the declaratory relief counts) of the Supplemental Complaint. MOX Services contends that Count II presents a pure question of contract interpretation on whether the NNSA prematurely clawed back $21.6 million of cost/schedule incentive fee payments it had made to MOX Services. Similarly, MOX Services contends that Count V presents a question of regulatory interpretation on whether the attorneys’ fees and other professional consultant costs claimed by MOX Services for reimbursement as contract administration costs in investigating and preparing a Request for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) constitute “legal costs” that must comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 719 (2013).1 On February 1, 2018, Defendant filed a motion for partial dismissal regarding Counts II, III, and V of the Supplemental Complaint. Defendant argues that Counts II and V should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they were not presented to the contracting officer, they do not present a case or controversy and are not ripe, and because declaratory relief may not be granted when money damages are adequate. Defendant also moved for partial dismissal of Count III because MOX Services failed to provide required contractual notice of the claim, and because the claim allegedly is time barred by the Contract Disputes Act’s six-year statute of limitations, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4) (2011). On March 28, 2018, Defendant filed a response to MOX Services’ motion for partial summary judgment, and purported to cross-move for partial summary judgment in its favor. However, as MOX Services notes, Defendant’s “c...
