Doctrine of Mistake seeks to strike a balance between the party who is adversely affected by the mistake and the party who would be adversely affected if the court were to grant relief from the contract.
Doctrine of Mistake Sample Clauses
Related to Doctrine of Mistake
Principles of Interpretation The following principles of interpretation apply to this Settlement Agreement:
Interpretation of this Agreement All decisions and interpretations made by the Committee with regard to any question arising hereunder or under the Plan shall be binding and conclusive upon the Company and the Recipient. If there is any inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and the Plan, the provisions of the Plan shall govern.
No Legal Prohibition No Governmental Authority of competent jurisdiction shall have (i) enacted, issued or promulgated any Law that is in effect as of immediately prior to the Effective Time and has the effect of making the Merger illegal or which has the effect of prohibiting or otherwise preventing the consummation of the Merger, or (ii) issued or granted any Order that is in effect as of immediately prior to the Effective Time and has the effect of making the Merger illegal or which has the effect of prohibiting or otherwise preventing the consummation of the Merger (collectively, a “Restraint”).
Litigation History There shall be no consistent history of court/arbitral award decisions against the Tenderer, in the last (Specify years). All parties to the contract shall furnish the information in the appropriate form about any litigation or arbitration resulting from contracts completed or ongoing under its execution over the year’s specified. A consistent history of awards against the Tenderer or any member of a JV may result in rejection of the tender.
Forum and Choice of Law The parties deem the Contract to have been made in the City of Hartford, State of Connecticut. Both parties agree that it is fair and reasonable for the validity and construction of the Contract to be, and it shall be, governed by the laws and court decisions of the State of Connecticut, without giving effect to its principles of conflicts of laws. To the extent that any immunities provided by Federal law or the laws of the State of Connecticut do not bar an action against the State, and to the extent that these courts are courts of competent jurisdiction, for the purpose of venue, the complaint shall be made returnable to the Judicial District of Hartford only or shall be brought in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut only, and shall not be transferred to any other court, provided, however, that nothing here constitutes a waiver or compromise of the sovereign immunity of the State of Connecticut. The Contractor waives any objection which it may now have or will have to the laying of venue of any Claims in any forum and further irrevocably submits to such jurisdiction in any suit, action or proceeding.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 23, 2002, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech Illinois”) and Cook Inlet/Voicestream Operating Company, LLC, By Voicestream PCS BTA 1 Corporation, its agent, and Voicestream Wireless Corporation (collectively “Voicestream”), filed a joint Petition for approval of the Fourth Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated November 18, 2002 (the “Amendment”), under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) (the “Act”). The Amendment was submitted with the Petition. A statement in support of the Petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of Ameritech Illinois, and by Xxx Xxxxxx on behalf of Voicestream, stating that the facts contained in the Petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Illinois Commerce Commission Staff filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on January 7, 2003. Counsel for Ameritech Illinois and Staff appeared at the hearing and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. The Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
Application of this Agreement 2.1 All facilities made available by the Bank to any Person in respect of a Card or a Card Account are subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement (as may be amended from time to time subject to prior notice) and any other applicable terms and conditions. A Person becomes subject to such terms and conditions (if not already so subject) by signing, activating or using a Card or permitting its use.
Interpretation of results 2.1.3.1. In the case of all vehicles except those of categories M3, N2 and N3, the time t shall not exceed 20 seconds.
Mandate I / we acknowledge that all payment instructions issued by the Stratcol User shall be treated by my / our abovementioned bank as if the instructions had been issued by me / us personally.
Enforce Discipline Contractor shall at all times enforce strict discipline and good order among its employees, Subcontractors, and others performing the Work, and shall not employ or permit the employment of unfit persons or persons not skilled in the task assigned to them.
