The Dispute Sample Clauses

The Dispute. In this Agreement, “

The Dispute. The dispute relates to the proposal of the Defendant, the Council of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames ("the Council") to control entry to a private road, Xxxxxx Road, Kingston-on-Thames, by an unmanned code-operated barrier ("the proposed barrier").The road provides access from a public road to what is known as the "Coombe Estate". The proposal is supported by the local residents' association, the Malden and Coombe Residents' Association ("MCRA"). It is opposed by the Claimants. They operate three schools and a training centre from premises situated adjacent to another private road (for most of its length), Xxxxxx Road, which is accessed from the east from Xxxxxx Road. The three schools are Marymount International School ("Marymount"), Holy Cross Preparatory School ("Holy Cross") and Rokeby School ("Rokeby"). They are owned and operated by the First Claimant, the Second Claimant and the Third Claimant respectively. The training centre, the Four Acres International Training Centre ("Four Acres"), is owned and operated by the Fourth Claimant ("Unilever") or a subsidiary company. During the course of the hearing, the collective term "institutions" was used to describe institutional owners and occupiers of premises on the Coombe Estate comprising three schools, two training centres, care homes and two golf clubs, as distinct from houses in domestic use.

The Dispute. 15.2.1 An FCM and or the Union who has a difference or dispute with the Company, or a dispute with respect to the interpretation of the Collective Agreement shall first discuss the matter with their supervisor with a view to achieving prompt settlement thereof. This discussion will occur as soon as reasonably possible and the process shall use the following steps:

The Dispute. [Here, set out details of the contract(s) or other legal relationship(s) and brief details of the dispute(s) to be referred to Early Neutral Evaluation.]

The Dispute. 1.1. [Concise definition of dispute, eg by reference to Court and Claim Number]

The Dispute. On the 7 March 2020, the Buyer raised a demand order of 2,00,000 litres of aviation fuel from the Seller. The Seller subsequently raised an order of unprocessed fuel from Big Petro and the order was confirmed as per the prevailing prices of 9 March 2021. The unprocessed fuel was supplied to the Seller, who in turn processed and dispatched the fuel to the Buyer. However, due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the Government of Taurad (“GOT”) in the evening of 22 March 2020 issued a nation-wide lockdown order (“Lockdown”). Accordingly, the flight operations of the Buyer as well as all the other airlines were completely suspended till further notice. On 23 March 2020, the Buyer had sent the cancellation order to the Seller stating that on account of the suspension of flights it does not require any further fuel. The Seller reverted via email stating that order is already dispatched and in transit. The Seller suggested that since the Buyer maintains the reservoir of 2,50,000 litres, it can store the consignment and use it on a later date when the requirement comes. The Seller stated that this would not cause any prejudice to the Buyer and loss of both sides will be mitigated. 1 Certain clauses of the Agreement have been reproduced in Annexure I While the parties were negotiating the deadlock, on 25 March 2020, Xxxxxxx informed the Seller that the Buyer has refused to take the delivery of consignment and therefore Xxxxxxx is forced to park the oil tackers outside the collection points. Xxxxxxx stated that the Seller will be forced to bear the demurrage charges due to the delay. The Seller immediately informed the Buyer regarding the same and stated that if the Buyer does not accept the consignment, the same would amount to breach of the Agreement and further, the demurrage chargers if incurred would be recoverable from the Buyer in terms of the Agreement and law. On 30 March 2020, Xxxxxxxx informed that almost all the consignments have reached the collection points and if the Buyer does not accept the consignment, Xxxxxxxx will be forced to return the consignment to Seller and Seller would be liable to reimburse Xxxxxxx demurrage and cost of transportation back to supply depot. Seller informed Xxxxxxx that fuel cannot be returned as there is not enough storage space. Xxxxxx urged Xxxxxxx to wait for another (seven) 7 days so that the situation is resolved. The situation between the parties is as follows:

The Dispute. The opération of scheduled air services between Belgium and Ireland is governed by the bilatéral air transport agreement concluded in 1955 between the countries (3). The two governments mutually exchanged third, fourth and fifth freedom traffic rights in passengers, mail and cargo for their res­ pective designated national air carriers (4). s a b e n a Belgian World Airlines, cular period (usually a week) as a resuit of the payload (total number of seats and, or cargo space) of the aircraft (aircraft capacity) flown on the route and the number of flights (frequency) during that period. In order to operate economically a certain percentage of aircraft capacity must be sold. This percentage called a «reasonable load factor» is generally assumed to be around 60%. The unsold capacity below this percentage can be defined as «overcapacity». In other words overcapacity can be eut through adjusting the aircraft type or number of flights without the carrier losing actual traffic, see Xxxxx, B., The Law o f International A ir Transport, Xxx- xxx, Xxxxxxx at 411-412 (1962); Xxxxxx, J., Droit du transport aérien international, Bruxelles, Bruylant at 97 et seq. (1980); X’Xxxxxx, X ., An Introduction to Airline Economies, New York, London, Praeger Publishers at 41 (1978); Xxxxxxxxxxx, X ., Public International Air Trans­ portation Law in a New era, Deventer, Kluwer at 31 (1976). As the present dispute deals only with scheduled international air services, the capacity régulation of non-scheduled internatio­ nal air services will be left out of the further discussion. On the distinction between scheduled and non-scheduled air services, see Matte, N., Traité de droit aérien-aéronautique, Paris, Xxxxxx at 148 et seq. (1980); Merckx, A., New Trends in the International Bilatéral Régulation o f A ir Transport. 17 E.T.L. at 138 (1982).

The Dispute. On July 7, 2008, the Government of Sudan (“GoS”) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (“SPLM/A”, and together with GoS, the “Parties”) signed the “Arbitration Agreement between The Government of Sudan and The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army on Delimiting Abyei Area” (“Arbitration Agreement”).

The Dispute. A dispute has arisen between the Parties relating to their respective rights and obligations arising out of various business transactions including, without limitation, Simo’s service as Chief Executive Officer of Orange 21, the purchase of goods by No Fear from Spy Optic, and the purchase of goods by MX No Fear Europe from Spy Italy.

The Dispute. This Agreement is entered into with reference to a dispute between the Parties arising out of a certain investment by Pxxxxxxx in Royale Energy in the amount of one million two hundred eighty thousand dollars and no cents ($1,280,000.00) that Pxxxxxxx transferred to Royale Energy on or about July 26, 2016 (the “Dispute”).