Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.
Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.
Organizational Matters 16 Section 2.1. Organization.....................................................16 Section 2.2. Name ............................................................16 Section 2.3. Resident Agent; Principal Office.................................16 Section 2.4.
Updated Information Submission by Developer The updated information submission by the Developer, including manufacturer information, shall occur no later than one hundred eighty (180) Calendar Days prior to the Trial Operation. Developer shall submit a completed copy of the Large Generating Facility data requirements contained in Appendix 1 to the Large Facility Interconnection Procedures. It shall also include any additional information provided to Connecting Transmission Owner for the Interconnection Feasibility Study and Interconnection Facilities Study. Information in this submission shall be the most current Large Generating Facility design or expected performance data. Information submitted for stability models shall be compatible with NYISO standard models. If there is no compatible model, the Developer will work with a consultant mutually agreed to by the Parties to develop and supply a standard model and associated information. If the Developer’s data is different from what was originally provided to Connecting Transmission Owner and NYISO pursuant to an Interconnection Study Agreement among Connecting Transmission Owner, NYISO and Developer and this difference may be reasonably expected to affect the other Parties’ facilities or the New York State Transmission System, but does not require the submission of a new Interconnection Request, then NYISO will conduct appropriate studies to determine the impact on the New York State Transmission System based on the actual data submitted pursuant to this Article 24.3. Such studies will provide an estimate of any additional modifications to the New York State Transmission System, Connecting Transmission Owner’s Attachment Facilities, or System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades based on the actual data and a good faith estimate of the costs thereof. The Developer shall not begin Trial Operation until such studies are completed. The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of any modifications required by the actual data, including the cost of any required studies.
No Conflict; Required Filings and Consents (a) The execution and delivery of this Agreement by the Company do not, and the performance of this Agreement by the Company and the consummation of the Mergers (subject to the approval of this Agreement, the Mergers and the other transactions contemplated hereby by the Company Required Vote) and the other transactions contemplated by this Agreement will not, (i) conflict with or violate any provision of the Company Memorandum, or the equivalent organizational documents of any Subsidiary of the Company, (ii) assuming that all consents, approvals, authorizations and waivers contemplated by Section 4.05(b) have been obtained, and all filings described therein have been made, and assuming the accuracy and completeness of the representations and warranties contained in Section 5.05(b), conflict with or violate any Law applicable to the Company or its Subsidiaries or by which any property or asset of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is bound or affected, (iii) require any consent or other action by any Person under, result in a breach of or constitute a default (or an event that with notice or lapse of time or both would become a default) under, give to others (immediately or with notice or lapse of time or both) any right of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation of, result (immediately or with notice or lapse of time or both) in triggering any payment or other obligations under, or result in the loss of any right or benefit to which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is entitled under, any note, bond, mortgage, indenture, contract, agreement, lease, license, permit, franchise or other instrument or obligation or authorization (each, a “Contract”) to which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is a party or by which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or any property or asset of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, is bound or affected or (iv) result (immediately or with notice or lapse of time or both) in the creation of a Lien on any property or asset of the Company or its Subsidiaries, except in the case of clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) for any such conflicts, violations, breaches, defaults or other occurrences that would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be likely to have a Company Material Adverse Effect.
PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION The purpose of the Agreement is to provide the City with the services for one full-time equivalent senior criminalist from the Department to perform DNA testing, analysis, and forensic-related consulting as requested by the City, effective July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2021. The City’s current agreement with the County for this position expires on June 30, 2016. This Agreement will not result in the creation of an additional senior criminalist position, as the position was created during the previous agreement.
Proposal of Corrective Action Plan In addition to the processes set forth in the Contract (e.g., service level agreements), if the Department or Customer determines that there is a performance deficiency that requires correction by the Contractor, then the Department or Customer will notify the Contractor. The correction must be made within a time-frame specified by the Department or Customer. The Contractor must provide the Department or Customer with a corrective action plan describing how the Contractor will address all performance deficiencies identified by the Department or Customer.
