Issue No. Who is Responsible for Paying the Handling Fees?
Issue No. Whether the Arrival of the Barge at Maundays Bay was in Breach of Contract [163] In view of the Court’s findings of fact above that Devcon’s arrival at Maundays Bay beach was occasioned by a genuine miscommunication between the parties, the Court is of the view that this is no longer a live issue to be determined. By way of comment, the Court reiterates that the parties in their haste to have the beach replenished in the shortest possible time, failed to address their minds to the clearance of the equipment, fuel and lubrications. I do not accept that Devcon is solely responsible for its equipment and barge entering Maundays Bay beach. Both Devcon and Cap Juluca are responsible for the breaches of the law. There is no doubt that they both made the error of not discussing this aspect of the matter, even though DCK’s employees told Devcon that they could have arrived at Maundays Bay beach.
Issue No. Whether Cap Juluca is Liable for the Damage that was caused to the Barge
Issue No. Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr) Closes April 1 and Published in May Issue No. 2 (May/Jun/Jul/Aug)
Issue No. 1
9.1. [Brief description of the issue, the Parties’ positions and the decision of the Adjudicator, including reasons, for issue no. 1 (give reference to Sub-Clauses of the Buildings Contract or any applicable documents listed in Annex U [List of Applicable Documents] to the Buildings Contract). If the issue is complex, or requires a lengthy description, then the Parties’ positions may be included as separate Sub-Sections.]
9.2. [Summary table showing figures for the claim, any valuation by the responding Party and the decision of the Adjudicator(s). This summary table may include interest at a reasonable commercial rate as per Annex D [Procedural Rules for Adjudication] to the Buildings Contract.]
Issue No. 3 (and add as many other Sections as necessary)
11.1. [Repeat as the above Section.]
Issue No. Did the condition precedent set forth in Section 3 of the Assignment occur, such that WHWD’s consent to the Assignment was obtained? Section 3 of the Assignment states in relevant part: “[O]nly in the event that the part of the Property described in the Purchase Agreement is conveyed to Buyer from World, Western consents and accepts the assignment of World’s right, title, interest, obligations and liabilities in and to the Master Agreement and the WHWD Liabilities to Buyer as set forth in this Agreement...” [emphasis added.]
Issue No. If WHWD determines the finding to Issue No. 1 is “no”, e.g., the condition precedent in the Assignment did not occur and there was no Assignment of the Master Agreement to Provide Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage Services, as amended by the Addendum to Master Agreement to Provide Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage Services (referred to herein as the “Amended Master Agreement”), then does World remain obligated to WHWD as set forth in the Amended Master Agreement?
Issue No. If World continues to be obligated to WHWD under the Amended Master Agreement, what are the delinquent amounts for which World is liable to WHWD?
Issue No. 5: Does former WHWD Director Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx’x undisclosed financial interest in the Assignment, e.g., the agreement by Angel’s Crossing to assume World’s obligation to pay International Practice Group approximately $165,085.02, result in the Assignment being void pursuant to Gov’t. Code §1090, et seq.?
