THE FACTS Sample Clauses

THE FACTS. From the affidavit evidence before me and the submissions by counsel for all the parties it is quite clear that the plaintiff is the legal owner of Stand No. 36 Kitwe which at the time of commencement of these proceedings on 23rd September 2009 had comprised of residential flats. It is also quite clear that about 2004 the defendant allowed the third parties to occupy the road reserve and frontage of Stand No. 36 Kitwe on the understanding that the third parties would pay site rent to the defendant which was paid from time to time. It is also a fact that subsequent to these proceedings the defendant rezoned the area including the area where Stand No. 36 is situated from residential to commercial and that the plaintiff obtained building permission to demolish the flats and to construct a shopping complex. It is further a fact that subsequently the plaintiff advised the defendant to remove the third parties from the road reserve and frontage of Stand No. 36 Kitwe and that the defendant issued to the third parties in September and November 2009 notices to remove their makeshift stalls from the road reserve and frontage of Stand No. 36

THE FACTS. The facts that have emerged from the unrefuted evidence may be summarized as follows: On or around August 1, 2004, Xxx XxXxxxx, the claimant, was employed to Atlas Protection Limited, the first defendant, as an unarmed security guard. The first defendant was at the time, and still is, engaged in the business of providing security services in Jamaica. The claimant was assigned static duty between 7:00 p.m. on July 31, 2004 and 7:00 a.m. on August 1, 2004 at premises located at 00 Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxxxx 00. Those premises housed a factory owned and operated by Ringo Company Limited, the second defendant. The second defendant was at the time carrying on the business of food and juice manufacturing. The claimant was the only security guard assigned to perform duties at that location during that period.

THE FACTS. In May 1994, respondent ABSMCBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABSMCBN) signed an Agreement (Agreement) with the Xxx and Xxx Management and Development Corporation (MJMDC). ABSMCBN was represented by its corporate officers while XXXXX was represented by XXXXX, as President and General Manager, and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx (XXXXXXX), as EVP and Treasurer. Referred to in the Agreement as AGENT, MJMDC agreed to provide SONZAs services exclusively to ABSMCBN as talent for radio and television. The Agreement listed the services SONZA would render to ABSMCBN, as follows:

THE FACTS. 3.1 On 18 January 2007, Sellers offered to Buyers through the Broker the goods in question. Exchanges took place between the parties and a Contract was concluded. 3.2 3,788.331 metric tons of Russian Sunflowerseeds were loaded on board the MV AA in Russia under a Bill of Lading dated 10 February 2007.

THE FACTS. On June 8, 2001, RA 9136 or the EPIRA was passed into law. Among the policies declared therein is the “orderly and transparent privatization of the assets and liabilities of the National Power Corporation (NPC).”2 To carry out this policy, the EPIRA created PSALM, a government-owned and controlled corporation with the mandate to “manage the orderly sale, disposition, and privatization of NPC generation assets, real estate and other disposable assets, and IPP [independent power producers] contracts with the objective of liquidating all NPC financial obligations and stranded contract costs in an optimal manner.”3 To enable PSALM to effectively discharge its functions under the law, it was allowed to “take ownership of all existing NPC generation assets, liabilities, IPP contracts, real estate, and all other disposable assets.”4 On the manner of privatization of NPC assets, the EPIRA provides:

THE FACTS. The important facts concerning this Agreement are as follows: A. Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx (“Executive”) is an officer and employee of the Corporation. B. Executive has applied for a Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company Increasing Whole Life Insurance Policy (“Policy”) as evidenced by Exhibit B attached hereto. Executive and Corporation have entered into a Split-Dollar Insurance Agreement as of December 9, 1986 regarding the Policy (“Contract”) as evidenced by Exhibit A attached hereto. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company and any other company issuing a policy of insurance which shall be subject to the Contract shall be referred to as an “Insurer.” From time to time Executive may acquire additional insurance on Executive’s life, and Corporation may assist Executive in carrying such additional insurance under the terms of the Contract. Any such additional insurance shall be considered part of the Policy for purposes of this Agreement. C. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, the Corporation will assist the Executive in carrying the Policy. In return for this assistance, Corporation will receive a portion of the Policy proceeds that are payable upon Executive’s death. D. Corporation desires to recover all sums that are payable by the Corporation under the terms of the contract plus 10% pretax on said sums and wishes to transfer certain amounts as provided herein, in excess of such recovery that Corporation may receive to the Executive’s designated beneficiaries; accordingly, the Corporation and Executive desire to enter into this Special Executive Supplemental Benefit Agreement for Executive and/or his designated beneficiaries.

THE FACTS. 2.01: In January 2005 the United Nations Secretary General, Xxxxx Xxxxx flew to Cameroon and obtained a commitment [herein referred as the Xxx Bakassi Peace Accord] which accordingly reads….. “

THE FACTS. The appellant, which is “a wholly owned company of the Government of Madhya Pradesh” (as described by the appellant in the D Special Leave Petition), is responsible for the bulk purchase of electricity in the State of Madhya Pradesh for onward sale/supply to the distribution utilities (DISCOMS). The appellant issued a request for proposal (RFP) dated 06.05.2015 for long-term procurement of 300 MW of solar energy through tariff-based competitive bidding. The bid of M/s Sky Power Southeast Asia Holding Limited was accepted. It was declared the E successful bidder for three units of 50 MW each at different tariff rates. The bidder subsequently incorporated the first respondent, viz., M/s Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited as a special purpose company. This was for developing one project of 50 MW. The rate, which is applicable in respect of the first respondent, was Rs.5.109 per F unit. In respect of the other two bids, the bidder incorporated other companies, viz., M/s Sky Power Solar India Private Limited and M/s Sky Power Southeast Asia One Private Limited. The rates applicable in respect of said companies for the other two projects consisting of 50 MW each was Rs.5.298 per unit and Rs.5.051 per unit, respectively. The PPA was entered into on 18.09.2015. The agreement, inter alia, G provided for pre-commissioning activities. They are described as satisfaction of conditions subsequent by the seller. The first respondent is the seller under the PPA.

THE FACTS. The Protection of Military Security in the Federal Republic of Germany This article will study the legal authority granted to Allied military police and other security personnel under SOFA and provisions. To promote a better understanding of the intra-German legalistic and political discussion, it starts with a comparative analysis based on the technical framework of Ger- man security laws. A. The Protection of German Military Security The activities of German military police and other security services are governed by the Use of Force (Armed Forces) Act of 1965. 1. The Approach of the 1965 Act.-This bill was enacted in an era strongly distrustful of any military privileges and fo- cused extensively on the protection of military The authority of security personnel is much more restrictive than under any state police act in Germany. As a consequence, the law’s operation has manifested many legal problems and loopholes. For example, no sufficient authority exists-for technical reasons stemming from the burden of stop people outside installations from spying The summary arrest of offenders usually is unlawful because of similar tech- nical flaws in the 1965 Act. Finally, only specially commis- sioned personnel can use this problematic authority. 2. The Problem of paramount

THE FACTS. 3.1 On 31 January 2007 Sellers approached Mr X, the Intermediary, looking to sell a quantity of 3,600-3,800 metric tons of Russian Sunflowerseeds on a prompt basis. Mr X was a former employee of Buyers and subsequently in his new business was known to collaborate with Xxxxxx in certain agricultural commodities transactions. In the event, the interest was passed on to Xxxxxx, who recognised Sellers' name as a company they had previously done business with and decided to open negotiations for the parcel. 3.2 The following day (1 February 2007) a Contract for 3,600 metric tons (10% more or less) of Sunflowerseeds was concluded between Buyers and Sellers by telephone with a follow-up exchange of e-mails, and on 2 February 2007 a written confirmation was produced. 3.3 In fulfilment of the Contract, 3,788.331 metric tons of Russian Sunflowerseeds were shipped on board the MV AA in First named Russian port under a Bill of Lading dated 10 February 2007 and destined for named Italian port. 3.4 Sellers invoiced Buyers for 99% of the goods value in Euros on 12 February 2007. 3.5 Buyers paid for the goods in Euros by bank transfer on 14 February 2007. 3.6 The vessel arrived at named Italian port on 20 February 2007 and completed discharge on 21 February 2007. 3.7 Buyers, on the 28 February 2007, sought reimbursement of the price paid in Euros and requested an invoice denominated in US Dollars. 3.8 Surveyors appointed by the parties took joint samples that were despatched to First named Laboratory, who issued an Analysis Report on 3 March 2007. 3.9 Second named Laboratory, issued a second Analysis Report on 23 March 2007. 3.10 A third Analysis Certificate was issued by Third named Laboratory on 19 April 2007. 3.11 Exchanges then took place between the parties over various issues in dispute without resolution. 3.12 On 13 April 2007, Xxxxxx claimed arbitration against Sellers under FOSFA Rules and appointed an Arbitrator. On 4 May 2007, Xxxxxx informed Sellers by e-mail that they were further claiming in arbitration for the non-payment of their debit note of 27 April 2007 in respect of quality allowances for the goods at discharge. 3.13 Sellers, on 16 May 2007, appointed an Arbitrator as the second arbitrator in the reference. 3.14 Buyers were also a party to arbitration with their customer in respect of these goods with the same arbitrators being appointed. Whilst the Arbitrators were of the view a consolidated arbitration was possible the three parties could not agree ...