Merits i. The owner can decide whether to start or shelve the project knowing the total lumpsum price quoted by different contractors.
Merits i. In this type of contract, additional staff for recording detailed measurements of original item of work is not required for making payment to the contractor.
Merits. 52. The parties appear to be in general agreement as to the three questions to be addressed. These are (a) what is the nature of Article 5 of the Termination Agreement, and specifically, is it a penalty clause; (b) is this clause valid and, if so, is it “exclusive” or “cumulative” with respect to meeting the other payment obligations provided for in the Termination Agreement, and (c) to the extent the clause is deemed valid, is the amount it provides for excessive, and if so, to what extent should it be reduced?
Merits. 41. Taking the parties’ submissions into due consideration, the main issues to be resolved by the Panel are: - Is the Appellant obliged to pay the transfer fee in the total amount of EUR 3,200,000? - If the Appellant failed to pay the transfer fee in due time, is the contractual penalty in the amount of EUR 500,000 proportionate and due?
Merits. No merit increases shall be paid during the term of this agreement.
Merits. 6.1. No concession of liability or settlement thereof on the basis of an apportionment or any other aspect of the claim may be made without the prior written authority of the Fund.
Merits. 64. The Appellant claims that the Transfer Agreement was signed on its behalf whereas the Respondent argues that Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx entered into the contract exclusively in its own name and for its own account.
Merits. An Employee shall receive a merit increase in increments ofone step each year on July 1 ifthe Employee receives a "meets expectations" or better performance review on the anniversary date ofhis or her employment during the previous period of July 1 through June 30.
Merits. Respondent unlawfully expropriated Xxxxxxxx’s investment and therefore is in breach of Article 7 BIT. First, Respondent not only introduced KEA and the Decree rendering Claimant’s investment redundant but also confiscated Claimant’s property. Second, expropriation was unlawful as measures introduced by Respondent fell outside public purpose, were discriminatory against Xxxxxxxx’s investment and introduced in breach of due process of law. In addition, Respondent failed to pay due compensation.
