Prejudice do or permit or allow to be done anything which might adversely affect the rights of the Lender under this Agreement or the Collateral Documents.
Prejudice. The Subscriber undertakes not to perform and shall not perform or cause to be performed, during the Event, any item which may be prejudicial or likely to cause prejudice to the State of Mauritius and/or the public at large or to the reputation or image of the State of Mauritius or its citizens.
Prejudice. Any cancellation of this Contract pursuant to the provisions of this Article IX shall be without prejudice to the right of the Party not in default to collect any amounts then due it and without waiver of any other remedy or performance to which the Party not in default may be entitled.
Prejudice. From my review of the evidence, it is only the Claimant who has asserted that it has a specific interest in the subject property separate and apart from a pecuniary interest. All the other parties’ interest lies principally in the financial value that the property holds. The 1st Defendant’s aim is to transfer it so he can satisfy his indebtedness. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants have not stated that they have any interest in the property. The 4th and 6th Defendants wish to acquire it in lieu of the debt owed to the 4th Defendants. If the property were to be transferred to the 4th and 6th Defendants, any opportunity the Claimant would have to exercise its rights under the ROFR would be thwarted. The 4th and 5th Defendant have already demonstrated that they intend to make some changes to the property. To allow them to remain in possession would afford them the opportunity to make additional changes which may also inure to the prejudice of the Claimant if the Claimant were to succeed at trial. In considering whether any prejudice would be occasioned to the 4th to 6th Defendants, I bear in mind that if the injunction were granted this would restrict the 4th to 6th Defendants from continuing with the transfer of the subject property during the life of the injunction and the delay could mean that the debt will continue to escalate and that the 1st Defendant may have a greater debt to settle. Additionally, considering the indication by Xx. Xxxx that they took up possession of the property in December 2022 they would now be required to give up possession. I do note however, that there is no indication from any of the Defendants that there is any intention to use the property for residential purposes. From all indications, the property was being used as a villa housing guests, which is indicative of a commercial venture which strengthens the Claimant’s position that the 4th to 6th Defendants’ interest is primarily financial. In all these circumstances, any prejudice occasioned to them could therefore be remedied by an award of damages. However, were the inunction not granted, the Claimant would lose forever a valued family heirloom which could not be remedied by an award of damages. This outweighs any prejudice the Defendants may suffer in having to await the determination of the matter to recover any financial loss. It is therefore my opinion that the Claimant is the only party who will face irremediable prejudice if the injunction were not granted. Relative Strength o...
Prejudice. Its social psychology. Oxford, UK: Xxxxxxxxx. Xxxxx, X. (2000). Social identitytheory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778. xxxxx://xxx.xxx/10.1002/1099- 0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID-EJSP24>0.0.XX;2-X Xxxxx, X. (2020). The social identity approach: Appraising the Tajfellian legacy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(1), 5-25. xxxxx://xxx.xxx/10.1111/bjso.12349 Xxxxx, X., Xxxxx, X., Leeds, S., & Xxxxx, K. (2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(4), 692– 703. xxxxx://xxx.xxx/10.1002/ejsp.384 Xxxxx, X., & Xxxxxxxx, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 255-343. xxxxx://xxx.xxx/10.1016/s0065-2601(05)37005- 5 Xxxxxx, X. X., & Xxxxxx, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258. xxxxx://xxx.xxx/10.1177/0049124192021002005 Xxxxxxxx, X., & Xxxxxx, X. (2013). Shared education initiatives in Northern Ireland: A model for effective intergroup contact in divided jurisdictions. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 13(3), 477-487. xxxxx://xxx.xxx/10.1111/sena.12044 Xxxxxxxxxxx, X. X. (2010). Diversity in the person, diversity in the group: Challenges of identity complexity for social perception and social interaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 1-16. xxxxx://xxx.xxx/10.1002/ejsp.647 Xxxx, X. X. (2009). National symbols as agents of psychological and social change. Political Psychology, 30(5), 779-804. xxxxx://xxx.xxx/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00725.x Xxxxxx, X. (2016, August 14). Kosovo's first Olympic winner gets hero's welcome at home.
Prejudice. Neither the presence of Buyer and Nokia's representatives nor any express or implied acceptance of e.g. work, materials, components, equipment or method of manufacturing nor the fact that the Buyer and Nokia or their representatives have not brought any defect or deficiency to the attention of the Seller or his representatives shall relieve Seller from its obligations under this Document to perform according to and to meet all requirements set out in this Document or prejudice any warranty of the Seller under this Document.
Prejudice. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Dkt. ##) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Award (Dkt. ##) (the “Motions”). The Court, having reviewed the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, heard argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therein, Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby GRANTED and it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED THAT: 1. Terms and phrases in this Order shall have the same meaning as ascribed to them in the parties’ April [XX], 2012 Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over all Parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members. 3. On [date of preliminary approval], this Court granted Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement and preliminary certified a settlement class consisting of: Any person in the United States or its territories who, at one or more times as of the date of entry of Preliminary Approval, is or had been a subscriber of Netflix. Excluded from [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 5:11-cv-00379-EJD 1 the Settlement Class are the following: (i) the Settlement Administrator, (ii) the Mediator, 2 (iii) any respective parent, subsidiary, affiliate or control person of the Defendant or its 3 officers, directors, agents, servants, or employees as of the date of filing of the Action, 4 (iv) any judge presiding over the Action and the immediate family members of any such 5 Person(s), (v) persons who execute and submit a timely request for exclusion, and (vi) all 6 persons who have had their claims against Defendant fully and finally adjudicated or 7 otherwise released.
Prejudice. The target’s perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Xxxxxx, X. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press. Xxxxxx, X. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Xxxxxx, X. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39. Xxxxxx, X., & Xxxxxx, X. X. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In X. X. Xxxxxx & X. Xxxxxxx (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Xxxxxx/Xxxx. Xxxxxx, X. X., & XxXxxxxx, X. X. (1984). A five-stage model of intergroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 291-300. The Black Commentator (2004, April). Xxxxxxxxxxx’s crimes. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/84/84_cover_condi.html. Xxxxx, X. X., & Xxxxxxxxxx, X. X. (1993). Inhibition and arousal. In Traue, H. C., Xxxxxxxxxx, X. X. (Eds.), Emotion inhibition and health (pp. 10-31). Ashland, OH, US: Xxxxxxx & Xxxxx Publishers. Xxxxx, X. X., & Xxxxxx, S. C. (2001). Ingroup identification as the inclusion of ingroup in the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 585-600. Xxxxxx, X. X. Xxxx, M. A., Xxxxx, X. X., Xxxxxxx, S. D., & Xxxxxxxxx, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Xxxxxxxxx. 107 Van Eerde, X., & Xxxxxxx, X. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 575–586. Xxxxx, X. X. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. XXXX, XXXX, set date 31 december 2007. Retrieved Februari 4 from xxx.xxxx.xx/xxx/ file?uuid=72ac7c05-1c22-41aa-8a67-10111ea22b87&owner=30689d27-c794-4a77-a4b1- 99268909879a&contentid=530. Xxxxxxxx, X. X., & Xxxxx-Xxxxx, N. (1997). Diversity in the Workforce: A Literature Review (MDS-934). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Xxxxxx, X., Xxxxxxxxx, X., & Xxxxxxx, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. In X. Xxxxxxx & M. Xxxxxxxx (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 331-372). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Xxxxxx, X. X. (2001). Restricted intergroup boundaries: Tokenism, ambiguity, and the tolerance of injustice. In X. X. Xxxx & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 223-254). New York: Cambridge University Pres...
Prejudice. The Contributor guarantees the Beneficiary Corporation against any prejudice resulting from any legal proceedings for recovery of property, for cancellation or for forfeiture, prior to the date of completion of the contribution, regarding the validity, ownership, use and/or exploitation of Trademarks 2, within the limits of the rights granted to it by the Certificates.
Prejudice. The parties agree that in determining whether an employee is regularly scheduled to work for less than twenty-four hours per week, only the hours that the employee was actually scheduled to work on the time schedules referred to in Article xxxx be counted. Where the employee works that became available the of the schedules as a result of illness, accident, etc., the hours of those shifts shah not be counted as “scheduled hours” of work. The working of such shifts shah not result in a reclassification of the employee to till-time status. Without Prejudice. LETTER between ST MARY’S OF THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION The parties hereby agree to the following: current employees who apply for positions and of the of any testing required, will continue on to the. interview stage. the interview, the person is the candidate, that person will he retested before the end of the probationary period . not the second testing, the department head will as to whether the skill in question is a major component of the job, and person performing well in all other areas. If yes, the person will be awarded the permanent position. Signed of November , For the Association EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION WAGE SCHEDULE
