Breach of. Article 38.1 shall be deemed a fundamental breach of this Agreement.
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. ARTICLE 26
4.01 A New Employer means any New Employer as defined in Article 26 of the Collective Agreement who is required to post or maintain an Irrevocable Letter of Credit.
4.02 If a New Employer fails to maintain or replenish the Irrevocable Letter of Credit in accordance with Article 26 of the Collective Agreement the Union shall notify any Builder or Prime Masonry Contractor who is reasonably believed to have assigned, to be assigning or who will assign work to the New Employer of that failure and at the same time shall provide a copy of that notice to the Masonry Contractors’ Association of Toronto. Where the notice relates to the failure to replenish the Irrevocable Letter of Credit, the Union shall advise of the amount owing to replenish the Irrevocable Letter of Credit.
4.03 A Builder or Prime Masonry Contractor who receives a notice under Article 4.02 shall holdback and not pay out monies owing to a New Employer that equals the amount required to replenish the Irrevocable Letter of Credit, and shall not allow the New Employer to commence any new work for the Builder or Prime Masonry Contractor, and will only allow the New Employer five (5) business days to complete any work which was ongoing at the time the notice was received. Any Prime Masonry Contractor who instructs or allows a New Contractor to perform work after five (5) business days have elapsed from the date that they received such notice will be deemed to have subcontracted work in violation of the Collective Agreement, including but not limited to Article 15 of the Collective Agreement.
4.04 If and when the New Employer provides or replenishes an Irrevocable Letter of Credit the Union shall advise any Builder and/or Prime Masonry Contractor who was notified pursuant to Article 4.02 that the New Employer has complied with Article 26 of the Collective Agreement and that Article 4.03 no longer applies.
4.05 Notices under this Article shall be in writing, and may be sent by facsimile transmission, email, regular mail, courier (including Canada Post Courier).
Breach of. SLA
1. Purchaser issues a show cause notice to the Supplier.
2. Supplier should reply to the notice within three working days.
3. If the Purchaser authorities are not satisfied with the reply, the Purchaser will initiate termination process as described in clause 33 of Section VII, GCC.
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:
(a) promptly replace the Products in question; or
(b) promptly repay the price of the Products. in addition to other remedies which NF (or NF Affiliates) may have hereunder or under law.
Breach of. In the event that [ * ], then, in addition to any other remedy Cephalon may have at law or in equity, Cephalon may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to Eagle or may exercise the rights set forth in [ * ].
Breach of. 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. If the Corporation fails to perform or observe any material covenant contained herein on its part to be performed or observed, Her Majesty shall be entitled to give the Corporation notice of breach of covenant and if the Corporation fails to rectify the breach to the reasonable satisfaction of Her Majesty within ninety (90) days of mailing of such notice or, if the breach is one which cannot reasonably be remedied within ninety (90) days, within such further period as the Corporation may request and Her Majesty may approve provided that Her Majesty shall not unreasonably withhold approval of any such request by the Corporation, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, without further notice, to declare this Permit terminated and, subject to paragraph 19, thereupon everything herein contained shall absolutely cease, determine and be void without re-entry or any act or any suit or legal proceedings to be brought or taken, provided Her Majesty shall nevertheless be entitled to recover from the Corporation any monies owing and moreover any right of action by Her Majesty against the Corporation in respect of any antecedent breach of any of the covenants herein shall not be thereby prejudiced.
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...
