Quality Disputes. (1) SELLER shall provide HECO with a Certificate of Quality of each batch or Marine Shipment of Product Delivered by the SELLER. For Marine Deliveries, such Certificate shall conform to the one provided to SELLER by its supplier of LSFO. Final determination of quality shall be made as otherwise provided herein.
(2) The official BTU Content determination shall be as reported in SELLER’s Certificate of Quality, provided that the arithmetic difference between SELLER’s and HECO’s laboratory results is equal to or less than the then existing ASTM reproducibility standard (currently 0.4 MJ/kg, which the Parties shall deem to be equivalent to a fixed standard of 60,000 BTU per Barrel) for test D-4868. If the difference between SELLER’s and HECO’s determinations of BTU Content should fall outside the ASTM reproducibility standard for ASTM test D-4868 the sealed sample in the possession of the Independent Inspector shall be provided to a mutually acceptable independent laboratory for an official determination, which shall be binding upon the Parties. SELLER and HECO shall share equally the costs of independent tests and determinations.
(3) If SELLER or HECO has reason to believe that the quality of Product stated for a specific Delivery fails to conform to the Specification in Article IV (Quality) or Attachment A of this Contract, that Party shall as promptly as reasonably possible, but no later than within thirty (30) Days of the later of the date of the completed Certificate of Quality or the date of the final determination of BTU Content, present the other Party with documents supporting such determination and the Parties will confer, in good faith, on the causes for the discrepancy and shall proceed to correct such causes and adjust the quality, if justified, for the Delivery in question. In the event of an unresolved difference between SELLER and HECO, the sealed part of the representative sample in the possession of the Independent Inspector shall be provided to an independent laboratory for an official determination, which shall be final. SELLER and HECO shall share equally the cost for such independent laboratory determination.
(4) If the quality of the Product received by HECO fails to conform to the quality Specification in Article IV (Quality) or Attachment A of this Contract, both HECO and SELLER shall attempt to minimize the impact of any quality problem. At HECO’s reasonable discretion, such efforts may include a Specification waiver if the use of the...
Quality Disputes. Any claim by P&G that any of the Products at the time of delivery to P&G did not meet the Release Specifications or during their shelf life did not meet the Specifications must be made in writing to OSGP within thirty (30) days after discovery by P&G of the problem. In the event that P&G claims that any of the Products failed to meet the Release Specifications or the Specifications and OSGP disagrees with P&G’s findings, OSGP shall test In OSGP’s Norwich Plant testing facilities a retained sample from the same batch as the contested Product. P&G may, at its option and cost, have one of its personnel present for and actively participate in such testing. At P&G’s discretion the testing may be done at a Third Party laboratory mutually agreed upon by the parties. The results of such Third Party testing shall be accepted by the two parties as final and binding. The cost of such analysis, and the cost of testing, shipment, replacement or disposal of disputed Product, shall be borne by the party whose position is not substantiated by the testing.
Quality Disputes. If QTI’s customer’s own analysis indicates quality deficiencies, then that customer will submit the analysis and claim in writing to QTI who will in turn forward to BSE. Within fifteen (15) business days after the receipt of the claim, BSE will accept claim or forward an eight (8) ounce portion of the retained sample to a mutually agreeable Official Referee Laboratory and notify QTI of such action who in turn will notify their buyer. The results of this Official Referee Analysis will be binding upon both parties for final claim settlement and the expense of the analysis will be borne by BSE if a claim is due and by the customer if no claim is due. In no event shall BSE be liable for duplicate claim liabilities under the Specifications Warranty.
Quality Disputes. 14.1 Any dispute concerning the grade, quality, sampling, testing or classification of Grain/Pulses/Oilseed which FIE and the Client cannot resolve themselves after using reasonable endeavours to do so, may be referred to an independent testing facility for resolution.
Quality Disputes. If the Parties are unable to agree as to whether a Product conforms to the Warranty, [**]. The [**]. The cost of inspections and testing by the laboratory will be [**].
Quality Disputes. Party B shall notify Party A in writing of any quality defects and provide written testing report with product tracking number. If Party A, after its quality control department has tested the product, has any objection to the testing report and the conclusion reached, it shall provide Party B with written feedback with relevant proof within **** working days. Otherwise it will be deemed to acknowledge the quality defects raised by Party B. If Party A’s testing confirm the quality defects, Party A shall arrange for an exchange or return of the defective products immediately. If the defective products are in small quantities, Party A could deliver the replacement to Party B upon its pick up of the next shipment. Party A shall bear all fees for delivery of the replacement. Refund and exchange are not available for products (excluding stress wafer) with a defective rate below ****, which will be considered as normal wear and tear during production and transportation. Party A has no responsibility for quality defects which are caused by Party B’s improper operations.
Quality Disputes. Any dispute concerning the grade, quality, sampling, testing or classification of Grain/Pulse which FIE and the Client cannot resolve themselves after using reasonable endeavours to do so, may be referred to an independent testing facility for resolution. FIE will determine the independent testing facility and will cover all sample preparation and courier expenses. Both parties are bound by the results provided by the Independent testing facility. In the event the Independent test results confirm FIE’s initial results the Client is liable for testing charges. In the event the Independent test results supports Client’s objections FIE is liable for testing charges.
Quality Disputes. If BioVectra does not agree with Keryx’s rejection of the Product pursuant to Section 8.a, the difference of opinion shall be first negotiated in good faith by the Parties through their quality assurance representatives, who will attempt in good faith to resolve any such disagreement and Keryx and BioVectra will follow their respective SOPs to determine the conformity of the Product to the Manufacturing Requirements. If such dispute is not resolved within [**] after BioVectra’s receipt of Keryx’s written notice of its disagreement, the Parties shall submit such dispute to a mutually acceptable independent third party laboratory for such laboratory’s determination as to whether Product meets or fails to meet Specifications and/or mutually acceptable independent GMP consultant in the case of an alleged failure to comply with GMP or any of the other Manufacturing Requirements, as appropriate. The laboratory and consultant, as applicable, must be of recognized standing in the industry, and consent to the appointment of such laboratory and consultant will not be [**] withheld or delayed by either Party. Such laboratory will use the test methods contained in the applicable Specifications and the Quality Agreement. [**]. The ultimate disposition of Nonconforming Product will be the responsibility of Keryx’s quality assurance department.
Quality Disputes. NexMed shall have the right to inspect the manufacturing facilities of Vergemont and review Vergemont's procedures and to take samples of the Licensed Products manufactured by Vergemont. If Vergemont becomes aware that any quantity of a Licensed Products does not comply with Sections 6.01 or 6.03 hereof, Vergemont shall promptly notify NexMed thereof. NexMed shall be provided a sample of the suspect Licensed Products upon request. Within sixty (60) days of receipt thereof, NexMed shall report to Vergemont in writing of the fact and extent of the non-compliance. Vergemont shall have sixty (60) days from the receipt of said report to replace the non-complying Licensed Products by shipping replacement products which are in compliance with Sections 6.01 and 6.03, or to report that it considers that the original Licensed Products did comply with Sections 6.01 and 6.03, in which case the parties shall use their best efforts to resolve any dispute.
Quality Disputes. Confidential material omitted and filed separately with the Commission. Party B shall notify Party A in writing of any quality defects and provide written testing report with product tracking number. If Party A, after its quality control department has tested the product, has any objection to Party B’s testing report and the conclusion reached, it shall provide Party B with written feedback with relevant proof within **** working days. Otherwise it will be deemed to acknowledge the quality defects raised by Party B. If Party A’s testing confirm the quality defects, Party A shall arrange for an exchange or return of the defective products immediately. If the defective products are in small quantities, Party A could deliver the replacement to Party B upon its pick up of the next shipment. Party A shall bear all fees for the delivery of replacement. If Party A and Party B could not reach a consensus on the product’s quality, they could jointly appoint a third party to conduct an independent quality evaluation of the product. Return and exchange are not available for products with a defective rate below ****, which will be considered as normal wear and tear during production and transportation. Party A has no responsibility for quality defects which are caused by Party B’s improper operations.
