Reasoning. The Provider has agreed to provide Xx Xxxxxx Bloggs with accommodation and care services under a Tenancy and a Care Agreement. Xx Xxxxxx Bloggs will become personally liable for the fees due under these agreements. In consideration for you agreeing to sign the Guarantee, the Provider will oblige by the terms of the Tenancy and Care Agreement. Should any fees under the agreements remain due and unpaid, the Provider can demand payment from you personally. This makes Xx Xxxxxx Bloggs’s placement financially viable should they become unable to pay the fees due under the Tenancy Agreement and/or the Care Agreement.
Reasoning. The Min-max interface agreement has a better performance with respect to the EBO and fill rate due to the fact the decision to give parts higher priority is based on the number of parts in repair. In the Lead-time model, the decision to give parts an emergency lead-time is based on the number of orders which does not have a due-date within the emergency lead-time. The value of the latter one is always equal or smaller than the number of parts in repair, and therefore in the Min-max model, parts get a higher priority earlier on. This results in a higher fill rate and a lower EBO.
Reasoning. Aid from public funds in the GESHER/MOST Programme is designated for supporting international cooperation projects in applied research1 and experimental development2 approved by a Joint Committee established pursuant to Article III(3) of the Agreement. Funds from the GESHER/MOST Programme will be used for the payment of costs related to the implementation of selected international applied research and experimental development projects. Pursuant to S. 2(2)(j) of the Act on the Support of Research, Experimental Development and Innovations an applicant for institutional aid from the GESHER/MOST Programme may only be a company defined in Part 2.2(a) and (b) of the Community Framework; if need be, in cooperation with a public higher education institution, public research institution and/or other research entities that may be qualified as research organisations pursuant to Article 2.2(d) of the Community Framework. However, the above institutions as such cannot become applicants for institutional aid. The motivational effect of the institutional aid of the GESHER/MOST Programme involves targeted support of activities pursued mainly by small and medium-sized enterprises in the field of applied research and experimental development at international level. This supports enhancing of competitive skills of most notably small and medium-sized enterprises, balances their access to the development of modern technologies and/or products (small and medium- sized enterprises have a more difficult access to new knowledge, which is one of their structural disadvantages) and contributes to the development of the above enterprises in the field of bilateral cooperation in research, experimental development and innovations. Tax measures supporting the implementation of research and development3 are the most efficient ones for large enterprises, which may pursue research in their own research capacities and which are financially strong enough to fund the whole research from their own resources (a surplus income tax payment is returned retroactively for the previous calendar year), are able to bear the risks related to failure and a decrease in their tax base is essential for them. However, small and medium-sized enterprises prefer direct aid granted for individual projects. Without the above aid a number of projects would not be implemented at all or would be implemented in a significantly smaller scope. So as to ensure the motivational effect of the aid, implementation of a proj...
Reasoning. Huuuge argued that Xxxxxx had actual or constructive notice of the Terms due to the Terms’ availability for access. The court rejected Huuuge’s argument, holding that Xxxxxx had neither actual nor constructive notice of the Terms. The court agreed with the trial court’s determination that actual notice was not at issue because Huuuge did not present any evidence of Xxxxxx’x actual knowledge. Regarding constructive notice, the court explained that users are put on constructive notice based on the conspicuousness and placement of the terms SEVENTH CIRCUIT CREATES A NEW STANDARD FOR CLASS ACTION NOTICE WHEN ARBITRATION CLAUSE MAY EXIST. Bigger v. Facebook, Inc., F.3d (7th Cir. 2020). xxxx://xxxxx.xx0.xxxxxx ts.go v/cgi-bin/rssE x ec. pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2020/D01-24/C:19-1944:J:Xxxxx:a ut:T:fnOp:N:2464184:S:0 FACTS: Plaintiff-Appellee Suzie Bigger, an employee of Defendant-Appellant Facebook, Inc., worked in a position that was classified by Facebook as ineligible for overtime pay. Bigger filed suit against Facebook on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees for violating FLSA overtime pay requirements. The trial court authorized the sending of notice of the action to a group of employees proposed by Bigger. Facebook filed a motion objecting to the notice. The trial court denied Facebook’s motion. Facebook filed an interlocutory appeal. HOLDING: Vacated and remanded. REASONING: Facebook argued that sending notice to the whole group would be improper because several of the members of the proposed group had entered into prior arbitration agreements with Facebook. The court accepted Facebook’s argument, holding that, in order to protect the neutrality of the court and not signal that it favors a plaintiff’s case, a court must follow certain steps before giving notice. The court stated that the trial court must first determine if a plaintiff contests the defendant’s assertions about the existence of a valid arbitration agreement entered by proposed notice recipients. The court further stated that, if a plaintiff contests the defendant’s assertions, the parties must be permitted to submit additional evidence on the agreement’s existence and validity. The The terms for Huuuge’s app were not just submerged, — they were “buried twenty thousand leagues under the sea.” and conditions, as well as the content and overall design of the app. The court further explained that such agreements will not be enforced where terms are buried at the bottom of a page or...
Reasoning. Amazon argued that the Children should be compelled to arbitration based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which requires a nonsignatory to arbitrate if the person “knowingly exploits” the contract with the arbitration clause. Amazon claimed that COURT REFUSES TO ENFORCE ARBITRATION PROVISION WHEN PLAINTIFF CLAIMS HE NEVER VISITED THE WEBSITE Xxxxx v. Apollo Interactive, Inc., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___ (M.D. Ga. 2019). xxxxx://xxxxxxxx.xxx/case/xxxxx-v-apollo-interactive-inc FACTS: Plaintiff Xxxxx alleged that Defendant Apollo Interactive, Inc., made automated telemarketing calls to him without his consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Amazon argued that the Children should be compelled to arbitration based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. the “knowingly exploit” test should be broadly interpreted to include individuals who “directly benefit” from the contract. Amazon also argued that under the “intertwined/ close relationship” test, the Children should be compelled to arbitrate their claim. The court rejected Amazon’s argument and agreed with the magistrate judge’s Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, arguing that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims. HOLDING: Motion denied.
Reasoning. Defendant argued that the only plausible inference from the evidence provided was that Plaintiff entered his contact information on Defendant’s website, XxxxXxxxXxxxxxxxx.xxx, and clicked “submit,” thereby assenting to the terms and conditions of the website, including an agreement to arbitrate any claims related to the website’s terms and conditions. However, Plaintiff presented evidence that he did not visit Defendant’s website and that it would report. The court identified two reasons why the parent- child relationship is not sufficient to bind the Children to arbitration. First, the court explained that the Children only received “indirect benefits” from the Parents’ user agreement with Amazon. Because the Children did not directly benefit from the contract, the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply. Second, the court noted out that Amazon, a signatory defendant, was attempting to compel the Children, nonsignatories, to arbitration. The court stated that if Amazon wanted to include a provision in the agreement requiring the Parents to consent to arbitration on behalf of their minor children, it could have done so. Because Amazon did not include such a provision, the Children were not signatories and thus were not bound to the arbitration agreement. have been impossible for him to access the website in the manner Defendant said he did. The court held that Plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient, stating that a reasonable factfinder could determine that Plaintiff did not enter his personal information on Defendant’s website or click “submit.” Thus, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Plaintiff did not assent to the website’s terms, including the arbitration provision. Because there was a genuine fact dispute as to whether Plaintiff entered an arbitration agreement with Defendant, the Court could not conclude as a matter of law that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate.
Reasoning. The term “debt relief agency” under the Bank- ruptcy Code, applies to attorneys, but only those assisting con- sumer debtors who are contemplating bankruptcy. The Code defines a debt relief agency as any person who provides any bank- ruptcy assistance to an assisted person in return for payment. An assisted person does not include all attorneys who provide bank- ruptcy assistance, but it applies to attorneys who as professionals offer bankruptcy related services to consumer debtors. Milavetz foreclosed this issue. This court went on to repeat what the Supreme Court stated in Milavetz regarding the “in contemplation of” provision of the Code. The Circuit court directed the district court to dis- miss plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to the “in contemplation of” provision of 526(a)(4) that prohibits advising an assisted per- son to incur more debt in contemplation of bankruptcy, because this conduct is abusive per se. This provision refers to a specific type of misconduct and its proscription is not unconstitutionally broad. This kind of conduct is also designed to manipulate the protections of the bankruptcy system. The standard of review for advertising requirements for professionals who offer bankruptcy-related services to consumer debtors is the rational basis test because this reasonably relates to the government’s interests in preventing deception of consumer debtors contemplating bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Code has disclosure requirements rather than an affirmative limitation on commercial speech. Commercial speech has only limited protec- tion with regards to First Amendment free speech rights. Commercial speech also is regulated because commer- cial speakers have extensive knowledge of both the market and their products, so they are well situated to evaluate the accuracy of their messages. Also, commercial speech is more durable and less central to the interests of the First Amendment. Commercial speech also relates to the economic interest of the speakers and their audience. The Supreme Court in Milavetz determined that the Code’s statutory provisions regulate only commercial speech. The contract requirements of 528(a)(1)-(2) also qualify as com- mercial speech. The disclosure requirement of the Code that pro- vides consumer debtors with basic information about bankruptcy is also commercial speech. The challenged statutes mandate dis- closure, but do not suppress speech; therefore the rational basis test is the appropriate standard of review. T...
Reasoning. The grievance resolution procedure is as follows:-
Reasoning. The Provider has agreed to provide Xx Xxxxxx Bloggs with accommodation and care services under a Resident Agreement. Xx Xxxxxx Bloggs will become personally liable for the fees due under these agreements. In consideration for you agreeing to sign the Guarantee, the Provider will oblige by the terms of the Resident Agreement. Should any fees under the agreements remain due and unpaid, the Provider can demand payment from you personally. This makes Xx Xxxxxx Bloggs’s placement financially viable should they become unable to pay the fees due under the Resident Agreement.
Reasoning. NTSA Parties may request a small percentage of their non-Treaty storage purposely to assure that their release was not spilled. If another NTSA Party then requests a much larger percentage of its non-Treaty storage that does cause spill, the NTSA Party making the large percentage request should be responsible for the excess spill caused by their request. For this reason, the unspilled portion of a NTSA release is allocated equally between the U.S. and B.C. Hydro and the U.S. Parties will be divided Pro Rata among releasing U.S. Parties, which automatically assigns the spill to the NTSA Parties requesting the largest percentage of their non-Treaty storage. This allocation will be done based on the day average values resulting from the usability determination. If two or more NTSA Parties are releasing and spill occurs, the determination of whose release was converted to energy and whose release was spilled will be determined as follows:
