THE CLAIM. Subject to the terms and conditions stated herein, and in exchange for the consideration set forth in Section 1.2 hereof, the Seller does hereby transfer, sell, assign, set over and quit claim unto the Purchaser, and the Purchase hereby acquires from the Seller, all of the Seller's right, title and interest in and to each and every mining claim identified below (the "Claims"): A map of the claim is attached as Exhibit “A” hereto.
THE CLAIM. The Claim constitutes a part of the outstanding Loan together with a portion of interest and the penalty interest to be paid by the Borrower in accordance with the Loan Agreement. The Claim only includes the payment obligations of the Borrower to the extent prescribed in Clause 2 of the Special Terms which shall become due in accordance with the payment schedule stated in Clause 3 of the Special Terms. The penalty interest shall accrue on the overdue principal amount of the Claim at the rate specified in Clause 2.4 of the Special Terms until the overdue amount has been paid. The Assignee acknowledges that it shall be one of the creditors who holds claims against the Borrower arising from the Loan Agreement along with the Loan Originator and other assignees (the latter hereinafter referred to as the “Customers”). The Assignee also acknowledges that it bears the payment risk related to the Borrower.
THE CLAIM. Subject to the terms and conditions stated herein, and in exchange for the consideration set forth in Section 1.2 hereof, the Seller does hereby transfer, sell, assign, set over and quit claim unto the Purchaser, and the Purchase hereby acquires from the Seller, all of the Seller's right, title and interest in and to each and every mining claim identified below (the "Claims"): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINERAL NATIONAL EXPLORATION NUMBER TOPOGRAPHIC LICENSE OF AREA SERIES MAP NUMBER LICENSEE HOLDER CLAIMS (HECTARES) SHEET -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 018059M Northridge Ventures Inc. (100%) 10 250 13H/05 018061M Northridge Ventures Inc. (100%) 9 225 13H/05 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS 19 475 (1,174 acres) ================================================================================
THE CLAIM. The claimant has laid the blame for this attack, and the consequential injuries and losses he allegedly sustained, at the feet of both defendants. He has alleged in his statement of case that the injuries he sustained were caused by the negligence of either the first or the second defendant or both of them. His particulars of negligence, as pleaded, have detailed the bases on which he is alleging that the defendants are liable in negligence. He seeks damages, interest and costs as pleaded.
THE CLAIM. 7.1 The Insured/Owner of this Policy will cooperate with the Insurer before and after presenting a claim and will do everything in their power to allow the Insurer to examine its liability to pay, according to the Conditions of the Policy and its validity.
7.2 The Insured will sign a Medical Secrecy Waiver in favour of the Insurer.
7.3 The Insured/Owner of the Policy will immediately inform the Insurer of the insured event and will submit as soon as possible, all the original documents relevant to the claim.
7.4 The Insured will be required to cooperate with Harel to be examined by one of the Insurer’s doctors on demand.
7.5 If the insurance has been cancelled by the Insurer for any reason whatsoever, the Insured/Owner of the Policy will be held responsible for all medical expenses.
7.6 The above requirement on the part of the Insured and/or the Owner of the policy, constitutes a preliminary condition to the Insurer’s liability to pay any kind of repatriation in accordance with this policy.
THE CLAIM. 3.1 In the Claimants’ claim they sought an order for the payment of their deposits being a sum owed by the Defendant to the Claimants for rescission of contract. In their pleadings the Claimants contended that the Defendant breached the contract by: • Failing to exercise all due professional skill and care in the performance of its services. The particulars of this general plea are set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Statement of Case. The Claimants alleged that the Defendant failed to complete the property in a “proper and workmanlike manner in accordance with the plans and specifications.” • Failing to maintain the value of the said property or to substantially maintain its accommodation. The Claimants contend in its Statement of Case that the failure to provide a swimming pool as part of the amenities resulted in a reduction in the value of the said property.
3.2 At paragraph 11 of the Statement of Case the Claimant pleads as follows:
THE CLAIM. Within sixty (60) days after the Closing Date, Purchaser shall notify Seller pursuant to the provisions of Article IX of claims, if any, that Seller breached its representation and warranty in Section 3.09 hereof. Such notice shall be accompanied by documentary evidence, including photographs, supporting Purchaser’s claim. The Parties will endeavor to resolve the claim as soon as practicable.
THE CLAIM. On March 8, 2011, Carnival Tuesday (“the said date”), the claimant was part of a group of persons on board a trailer registration number TBG 482 (“the trailer”) which was being towed by a truck registration number TBE 5103 (“the truck”). The truck and trailer were being used for a Carnival Monday midnight mass band and were together commonly referred to as a music truck. The trailer was loaded with speakers and other electronic equipment and a DJ. At the material time, the truck and trailer were owned by the second defendant and insured by the first and third defendants. The truck and trailer were being driven by the fourth defendant who was the servant and/or agent and/or permitted driver of the second defendant. The fifth defendant was the D.J. onboard the trailer and also the hirer of the truck and trailer from the second defendant for Carnival.
THE CLAIM. 5.1 On 18 January 2007, Sellers sent to the Broker at 12.42 hours a firm quote for a quantity of about 3,600 metric tons of Sunflowerseeds at US$333.50 per metric ton CIF EC Italy valid until 13.30 hours on the same day. Subsequent to a counter proposal, Sellers re-offered through the Broker at 13.18 hours a price of US$331.50 per metric ton firm until 14.30 hours. At 14.02 hours the Broker confirmed by e-mail to Sellers that the business was booked at US$331.50 per metric ton subject to certain terms and conditions. A copy of a proforma contract for Russian Sunflowerseeds showing Xxxxxx as the buyer of record was attached. This proforma template did not show a tonnage, shipment date or a price but the currency was shown as Euros.
5.2 There was a further exchange of e-mails relating to a weight clause and at 16.37 hours on 18 January 2007 Sellers replied by e-mail to the Broker that the deal was confirmed.
5.3 Later on the same day at 17.39 hours, the Broker sent to Buyers a written confirmation of the transaction. This was by means of e-mail with a PDF attachment. The price was shown in this document as “EUR 331.50/mt CIFFO”. The Broker sent a similar confirmation to Sellers at 16.54 hours.
5.4 On 13 February 2007, Sellers issued an invoice for 98% of the shipped quantity of 3,788.331 metric tons Russian Sunflowerseeds at €331.50 per ton for a total amount of €1,255,831.73. Buyers paid this invoice on 21 February 2007.
5.5 On 28 February 2007, Xxxxxx contacted Sellers via the Broker with the following urgent message: “With reference to above mentioned contract, we recall payment effected with value date 21/02/2007 for 1.230.715,10.- EUR currency (98% of goods value of yr invoice no [ ] dd 13/02/2007 for ttl eur 1.255.831,73-) which we understand was to be in USD currency!!! In this respect, we ask Seller to return us immediately the sum paid i.e. EUR 1.230.715.10 which we will promptly refund in USD same amount, against presentation of correct invoice too. Pls confirm you will be acting accordingly and kidly [sic] return with refund details….”
5.6 Sellers responded on the same day saying that they would double check and revert. The Broker who had sent out the Contract Confirmations also on the same day issued a statement to both parties: “To all parties involved Re today mail from [Buyers] confirm contract price was usd 331.50 (see below exchange of messages) and not euro 331.50 as mistakenly written in contract confirmation, being some issued on previous...
THE CLAIM. In order to make a claim, there should be a loss caused by the peril insured against. - Loss should be caused when the peril operates on the subject matter of the contract of insurance. - Recovery of the claim is subject to the doctrine of proximate cause. This means that the courts will look at which of the causes in the link is to be attributed within the intention of the policy. All causes preceding the proximate cause would be rejected as being too remote. This ensures that the policy would cover any loss which can be fairly attributed to the operation of the peril. In Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx & Co. vs. Xxxxxxx & Co. it was held that the damage caused to the cargo by sea water escaping through a hole made by rats was damage caused by “danger and accidents of the sea” and therefore, covered by the policy. - There may be limitation on the amounts recoverable under the following:
(a) Contribution clause – if there is any other insurance covering the property destroyed or damaged, the liability of the insurer upon the policy is limited to their rateable proportion of the destruction/damage.
(b) Average clause – if at the time of the loss the sum insured is less than the value of what is insured for, the insured is to be considered as his own insurer for the difference and must bear a rateable proportion of the loss.
(c) Excess clause – insured is expected to bear the loss up to a particular amount and it is only the excess which is insured for.
(d) Clause specifying smaller payments in certain circumstances – in Xxxxxx s. United Kingdom and General Provident Institution, the policy provided that the sum payable was limited if the insured died as a result of engaging in motor racing, motor rallies etc.
