Technical Disputes. 1.1 Except where a Dispute of a technical nature is determined by the Classification Society under Clause 4.2 in Article 1 or, as appropriate, by a Regulatory Authority under Clause 4.4 in Article 1, any Dispute of a technical nature arising before delivery of the Ship and which gives rise to issues purely of fact (including, without limitation, any dispute or difference of opinion relating to questions as to the existence, degree or extent of any alleged non-conformity of the Ship or any Part to the Contract, the Plans, the Specification, or the Rules) shall be referred to the Head Office of the Classification Society for its final decision provided that if the Head Office of the Classification Society declines to accept any such referral, or if either party reasonably considers that it is not appropriate to refer the Dispute in question to the Head Office of the Classification Society, the Dispute shall be referred to a mutually acceptable technical expert for his final decision.
1.2 The procedure applicable to the resolution of any Dispute of a technical nature (whether by the Classification Society or by a mutually agreed technical expert) shall be as follows:
(i) the person or body to whom the Dispute is referred (the “Expert”, which term shall also apply to any substitute appointed by mutual agreement of the parties) shall be requested to make a final decision within 21 (twenty one) working days after it has accepted the appointment;
(ii) within 10 (ten) working days after the Expert has confirmed to both parties that it has accepted the appointment, each party will send to the Expert (and simultaneously to the other party), by fax or registered courier, its submissions and supporting evidence in relation to the Dispute ;
(iii) if a party fails to submit its submissions and supporting evidence within the time limit laid down in paragraph (ii), it shall be deemed to have admitted the correctness of the other party’s submissions;
(iv) the Expert shall act as an expert and not as an arbitrator;
(v) the decision of the Expert shall be final and binding on both parties; and
(vi) the parties shall bear the Expert’s costs equally.
1.3 If within 10 (ten) working days after receipt by a party of a notice of a Dispute from the other party:
(i) the Head Office of the Classification Society has failed to accept a referral pursuant to Clause 1.1; or
(ii) a party reasonably considers that it is not appropriate to refer any Dispute of a technical nature to the Head...
Technical Disputes. 6.1 If, at any time during the design phase or any other stage of the building work, there is a difference of opinion between the Builder and the Buyer in relation to any technical matter, then either party may give a notice to the other party and if the parties do not resolve the difference of opinion within five (5) working days after the date of service of such a notice, the Builder or the Buyer may require that the difference of opinion be treated as a Dispute of a technical nature to be resolved in accordance with Clause 1 of Article 13.
Technical Disputes. If a Dispute primarily involves a technical or engineering issue and the Parties desire to attempt to resolve such Dispute by a Qualified Engineer prior to submitting a Dispute pursuant to Section 14.5(a), then the Parties may agree to refer such Dispute to a Qualified Engineer skilled in the particular discipline that is the matter of controversy. If the Parties desire to refer the matter to a Qualified Engineer, the Parties shall meet to mutually select and agree in writing on a Qualified Engineer to hear and to render a determination on such matter. The selected Qualified Engineer shall be given written notice of such selection by the Parties and the Parties shall secure its agreement to serve as the Qualified Engineer for such matter. Within ten (10) Business Days after the selection and engagement of the Qualified Engineer, the Parties shall each provide to the Qualified Engineer written notice stating in detail the contested matter and such Party’s basis for its position. Within five (5) Business Days thereafter, the Parties shall meet with the Qualified Engineer to resolve the Dispute. Within ten (10) Business Days after such meeting or as soon thereafter as possible, the Qualified Engineer shall decide the Dispute and issue a written memorandum decision to the Parties. Such decision shall be non-binding and either Party may submit such Dispute for resolution in accordance with Section 14.5(a). The Qualified Engineer’s costs and expenses shall be shared equally by the Parties.
Technical Disputes. In the event a dispute over (i) whether a Milestone has been achieved, (ii) whether TGTX has used Commercially Reasonable Efforts to Develop the Licensed Product, (iii) the proper allocation of Net Sales to a Licensed Product where the Licensed Product is sold as part of a Combination Product, or (iv) the Combination Percentage (each, a “Technical Dispute”) is not resolved in accordance with the negotiation and mediation dispute resolution processes described in Section 11.1 above, then either Party may submit the matter to expert intervention in accordance with this Section 11.2. Any such intervention may be initiated by a Party by written notice to the other Party specifying the subject of the requested intervention. The Technical Dispute hearings shall be convened in New York, New York and shall be resolved by one expert, to be mutually selected by the Parties; or if the Parties fail to agree on the expert within ten (10) business days following the date of such written notice, then the Parties shall cause their respective nominees to select a third individual within ten (10) business days to serve as the expert (the “Expert”). The Expert shall be required to have pharmaceutical industry experience specifically related to conducting formulation development activities and clinical trials, and shall not be any employee, agent or consultant of any Party or an Affiliate of any Party at such time, or otherwise involved (whether by contract or otherwise) in the affairs of any Party at such time. Each Party simultaneously shall submit to the Expert its proposal with respect to its position on the resolution of the Technical Dispute without having seen the other Party’s proposal, along with a discussion document explaining the rationale therefor. The Expert shall have the right to meet with the Parties, either alone or together, and shall have the right to request additional information and documents from each Party. The Expert shall select only one of the Parties’ proposals based on the Expert’s determination of which proposal is more consistent with the Expert’s opinion on the resolution of the Technical Dispute (and consistent with the terms of this Agreement), and shall provide a brief written rationale for such selection. The Expert’s decision shall be final and shall be binding upon the Parties under this Agreement. The Parties shall submit their documentation to the Expert within fifteen (15) days of selection of the Expert and provide any requested addi...
Technical Disputes. Any dispute on technical facts relating to claims brought under this Limited Warranty shall be finally determined by an independent third-party testing organization. JA Solar and Customer shall jointly appoint a reputable international or Chinese testing organization such as TÜV Rheinland, TÜV SUD, Intertek, UL, CQC or CGC, or any other mutually acceptable neutral third-party testing organization (hereinafter referred to as "Third-party Testing Organization") to determine the dispute. Neither Customer nor JA Solar shall unreasonably refuse to participate in the evaluation or delay the relevant testing and evaluation procedures, and shall provide convenience for the relevant testing and evaluation (including but not limited to providing convenience at the installation site and/or providing convenience for JA Solar to ship the Claim Modules involved to the Third-party Testing Organization for testing).Before carrying out such testing and evaluation, the Third-party Testing Organization shall inform JA Solar and Customer of the test equipment's power tolerance, which should be reflected in the final conclusions. The Third-party Testing Organization shall act as an expert, adjudicate on the disputed technical facts, allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to make representations and counter-representations and take those representations and counter-representations into account in making final conclusions. The final conclusions arrived at by the Third-party Testing Organization shall be final, conclusive and binding on both parties, and shall be a mandatory prerequisite for the judicial assertion of a warranty claim. Reasonable expenses incurred by the Third-party Testing Organization in carrying out the evaluation shall be paid in advance by Customer, including the cost of shipping the Claim Modules to the designated testing location of the Third-party Testing Organization, insurance costs, storage costs, etc., as well as the service charges for testing and evaluation. If the Third-party Testing Organization concludes that the Claim Modules do not conform to the Limited Product Warranty and/or the Limited Peak Power Warranty, JA Solar shall reimburse for actual testing and transportation expenses prepaid by Customer upon receipt of the relevant written notice and copies of the relevant invoices. The risk of damage to and loss of the Claim Modules in the process of testing and evaluation by the Third-party Testing Organization shall be transferred at the sam...
Technical Disputes. In case of any discrepancy in a warranty-claim, a first-class international test-institute such as TÜV Rheinland in Germany / China, TUV SUD in Germany / China, PI in Berlin / China and the third party which be agreed between the parties, shall be retained to judge the claim finally. All fees and expenses so arising shall be borne by the failed party. SolarEdge reserves the right for the final interpretation.
Technical Disputes. In the event that a difference of opinion between Buyer and Builder arises concerning any technical matters under this Contract, or in respect of material or workmanship affecting the classification of the Rig, Builder and Buyer agree to be bound by the decision of the surveyor of the Classification Society. The decision of the surveyor of the Classification Society shall be final and binding upon the parties and shall be given within thirty (30) days of receipt of parties’ statements of position. Pacific Class® 400 Rig Construction Contract (PPl Hull No. P2047) ARTICLE 18 SUBCONTRACTING AND SUPPLY
Technical Disputes. If a dispute arises between the Parties that is exclusively related to technical aspects of the Manufacturing, packaging, labelling, quality control testing, handling, storage, or other activities under this Agreement, including conformance of the Product to the Specifications (a “Technical Dispute”), the Parties will use all to resolve the dispute by amicable negotiations as provided above. If the Parties are unable to resolve a Technical Dispute by negotiation, the Technical Dispute will, at the written request of either Party, be referred for determination to an expert in the following manner:
Technical Disputes any dispute on technical facts relating to claims brought under this Limited Warranty shall be finally determined by an independent third-party testing organization. Philadelphia Solar and customer shall jointly appoint a reputable testing organization (hereinafter referred to “Third-party”) to determine the dispute. Neither Customer or Philadelphia Solar shall unreasonably refuse to participate in the evaluation or delay the relevant testing and evaluation procedures and shall provide convenience for the relevant testing and evaluation. Before carrying out such testing and evaluation the Third-party shall inform Philadelphia Solar and Customer of the test equipment’s power tolerance, which should be reflected in the final conclusions. The Third-party shall act as an expert, adjudicate on the disputed technical facts, allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to make representation and counter-representation and take those representations into account in making the final conclusions. The final conclusions arrived at the Third-party shall be final, conclusive, and binding on both parties and shall be mandatory prerequisite for the judicial assertion of a warranty claim. Reasonable expenses incurred by Third-party in carrying out the evaluation shall be paid by Customer in advance, including the cost of shipping the Claim Modules to the designated testing location of the Third-party. If Third-party concludes that the Claim Modules do not conform to the Limited Product Warranty or/and Limited Peak Power Warranty, Philadelphia Solar shall reimburse for the actual testing and transportation costs paid by Customer.
Technical Disputes. Any dispute or any difference of opinion between the parties hereto relating to conformity of the construction of the VESSEL or material used to classification requirements, or relating to any other minor technical matters shall be referred to the Classification Society for settlement by and between the parties and the Classification Society. In the event that the settlement cannot be reached by the three parties above mentioned, then such matters shall be referred to the court as hereinafter provided.
