{"component": "clause", "props": {"groups": [{"size": 2, "snippet_links": [{"key": "counsel-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [61, 72]}, {"key": "the-parties", "type": "definition", "offset": [77, 88]}, {"key": "legal-owner", "type": "definition", "offset": [133, 144]}, {"key": "commencement-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [188, 203]}, {"key": "september-2009", "type": "clause", "offset": [230, 244]}, {"key": "comprised-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [249, 261]}, {"key": "the-third-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [342, 359]}, {"key": "the-understanding", "type": "clause", "offset": [425, 442]}, {"key": "site-rent", "type": "definition", "offset": [476, 485]}, {"key": "to-the-defendant", "type": "clause", "offset": [486, 502]}, {"key": "from-time-to-time", "type": "clause", "offset": [518, 535]}, {"key": "the-area", "type": "clause", "offset": [614, 622]}, {"key": "to-construct", "type": "clause", "offset": [782, 794]}, {"key": "issued-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [998, 1007]}, {"key": "november-2009", "type": "clause", "offset": [1043, 1056]}, {"key": "notices-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [1057, 1067]}], "snippet": "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", "samples": [{"hash": "daeJlryHMW9", "uri": "/contracts/daeJlryHMW9#the-facts", "label": "Ruling on Application for Mandatory Injunction", "score": 30.5533297431, "published": true}, {"hash": "h7qc1effaQ2", "uri": "/contracts/h7qc1effaQ2#the-facts", "label": "Mandatory Injunction", "score": 20.8723594248, "published": true}], "hash": "d500871aed3b88002cbf51a053cbf3d1", "id": 1}, {"size": 2, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-claimant", "type": "clause", "offset": [128, 140]}, {"key": "security-guard", "type": "clause", "offset": [219, 233]}, {"key": "at-the-time", "type": "clause", "offset": [259, 270]}, {"key": "engaged-in-the-business", "type": "definition", "offset": [286, 309]}, {"key": "security-services", "type": "definition", "offset": [323, 340]}, {"key": "owned-and-operated", "type": "definition", "offset": [547, 565]}, {"key": "company-limited", "type": "clause", "offset": [575, 590]}, {"key": "perform-duties", "type": "clause", "offset": [762, 776]}], "snippet": "The facts that have emerged from the unrefuted evidence may be summarized as follows: On or around August 1, 2004, \u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587, 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 \u2587\u2587 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587, \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587\u2587. 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.", "samples": [{"hash": "6rQBL2j0Moh", "uri": "/contracts/6rQBL2j0Moh#the-facts", "label": "Negligence Claim", "score": 20.7194920625, "published": true}], "hash": "b63806a69a937e1646b81deb98f8feb4", "id": 2}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "high-school", "type": "definition", "offset": [0, 11]}, {"key": "home-school-students", "type": "clause", "offset": [28, 48]}], "snippet": "High School/Private /School/Home School students who graduate in 2018 with a minimum 2.5 GPA qualify.", "samples": [{"hash": "bdJdt9oUBga", "uri": "/contracts/bdJdt9oUBga#the-facts", "label": "Partnership Agreement", "score": 23.9973230333, "published": true}], "hash": "dd631a596fc68c9c9bb6bda37c5eb3e5", "id": 3}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "to-sell", "type": "clause", "offset": [74, 81]}, {"key": "quantity-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [84, 95]}, {"key": "metric-tons", "type": "definition", "offset": [108, 119]}, {"key": "former-employee", "type": "clause", "offset": [176, 191]}, {"key": "new-business", "type": "clause", "offset": [226, 238]}, {"key": "collaborate-with", "type": "clause", "offset": [252, 268]}, {"key": "commodities-transactions", "type": "clause", "offset": [300, 324]}, {"key": "in-the-event", "type": "clause", "offset": [326, 338]}, {"key": "the-interest", "type": "definition", "offset": [340, 352]}, {"key": "open-negotiations", "type": "clause", "offset": [474, 491]}, {"key": "february-2007", "type": "clause", "offset": [533, 546]}, {"key": "contract-for", "type": "definition", "offset": [550, 562]}, {"key": "buyers-and-sellers", "type": "clause", "offset": [640, 658]}, {"key": "by-telephone", "type": "definition", "offset": [659, 671]}, {"key": "written-confirmation", "type": "clause", "offset": [735, 755]}, {"key": "the-contract", "type": "definition", "offset": [791, 803]}, {"key": "on-board", "type": "definition", "offset": [866, 874]}, {"key": "bill-of-lading", "type": "definition", "offset": [921, 935]}, {"key": "the-goods", "type": "definition", "offset": [1035, 1044]}, {"key": "bank-transfer", "type": "definition", "offset": [1123, 1136]}, {"key": "the-vessel", "type": "definition", "offset": [1162, 1172]}, {"key": "the-price", "type": "clause", "offset": [1329, 1338]}, {"key": "an-invoice", "type": "clause", "offset": [1367, 1377]}, {"key": "by-the-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [1429, 1443]}, {"key": "analysis-report", "type": "clause", "offset": [1525, 1540]}, {"key": "analysis-certificate", "type": "definition", "offset": [1650, 1670]}, {"key": "issued-by", "type": "definition", "offset": [1675, 1684]}, {"key": "april-2007", "type": "clause", "offset": [1714, 1724]}, {"key": "between-the-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [1757, 1776]}, {"key": "issues-in-dispute", "type": "clause", "offset": [1790, 1807]}, {"key": "an-arbitrator", "type": "clause", "offset": [1926, 1939]}, {"key": "the-non", "type": "clause", "offset": [2041, 2048]}, {"key": "payment-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [2049, 2059]}, {"key": "in-respect-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [2094, 2107]}, {"key": "second-arbitrator", "type": "definition", "offset": [2216, 2233]}, {"key": "party-to-arbitration", "type": "definition", "offset": [2276, 2296]}, {"key": "the-arbitrators", "type": "clause", "offset": [2393, 2408]}, {"key": "consolidated-arbitration", "type": "definition", "offset": [2428, 2452]}, {"key": "the-proceedings", "type": "clause", "offset": [2530, 2545]}, {"key": "in-parallel", "type": "definition", "offset": [2599, 2610]}, {"key": "the-arbitration", "type": "clause", "offset": [2617, 2632]}, {"key": "representations-and", "type": "clause", "offset": [2667, 2686]}, {"key": "submitted-by", "type": "definition", "offset": [2696, 2708]}, {"key": "proceedings-by", "type": "clause", "offset": [2754, 2768]}, {"key": "trade-representative", "type": "definition", "offset": [2771, 2791]}, {"key": "final-written-statement", "type": "clause", "offset": [2815, 2838]}, {"key": "oral-hearing", "type": "clause", "offset": [2872, 2884]}, {"key": "in-view-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [2927, 2937]}, {"key": "the-request", "type": "clause", "offset": [3004, 3015]}, {"key": "submission-period", "type": "definition", "offset": [3067, 3084]}, {"key": "number-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [3180, 3189]}, {"key": "received-by", "type": "definition", "offset": [3231, 3242]}, {"key": "electronic-methods", "type": "clause", "offset": [3257, 3275]}, {"key": "basis-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [3394, 3402]}, {"key": "the-documents", "type": "clause", "offset": [3403, 3416]}], "snippet": "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 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 in certain agricultural commodities transactions. In the event, the interest was passed on to \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587, who recognised Sellers' name as a company they had previously done business with and decided to open negotiations for the parcel.\n3.2 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.\n3.3 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.\n3.4 Sellers invoiced Buyers for 99% of the goods value in Euros on 12 February 2007.\n3.5 Buyers paid for the goods in Euros by bank transfer on 14 February 2007.\n3.6 The vessel arrived at named Italian port on 20 February 2007 and completed discharge on 21 February 2007.\n3.7 Buyers, on the 28 February 2007, sought reimbursement of the price paid in Euros and requested an invoice denominated in US Dollars.\n3.8 Surveyors appointed by the parties took joint samples that were despatched to First named Laboratory, who issued an Analysis Report on 3 March 2007.\n3.9 Second named Laboratory, issued a second Analysis Report on 23 March 2007.\n3.10 A third Analysis Certificate was issued by Third named Laboratory on 19 April 2007.\n3.11 Exchanges then took place between the parties over various issues in dispute without resolution.\n3.12 On 13 April 2007, \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 claimed arbitration against Sellers under FOSFA Rules and appointed an Arbitrator. On 4 May 2007, \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 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.\n3.13 Sellers, on 16 May 2007, appointed an Arbitrator as the second arbitrator in the reference.\n3.14 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 on this subject. As a result, the proceedings of the two arbitrations were held separately but ran in parallel.\n3.15 The arbitration was conducted by means of written representations and evidence submitted by the parties. \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 were represented in the proceedings by a trade representative.\n3.16 Buyers, in their final written statement on 28 January 2008, requested an oral hearing. The Tribunal considered this request but in view of the already extensive exchanges submitted by the parties declined the request on 12 February 2008. In the same communication the submission period was declared to be closed. The Tribunal further sought verification from the parties as to the number of submissions made as submissions had been received by both mail and electronic methods. Buyers replied; Sellers did not. The Tribunal on 27 February 2008 confirmed that it would proceed to an award on the basis of the documents before it. Sellers, on the 28 February 2008, then requested an oral hearing. The Tribunal responded on 3 March 2008 by advising the Parties that the proceedings had already closed on 12 February 2008. (This fax message contained a typographical error showing the date as 3 February 2008 although it was transmitted on 3 March 2008).", "samples": [{"hash": "7WBoJT35tLh", "uri": "/contracts/7WBoJT35tLh#the-facts", "label": "Contract for the Sale of Goods", "score": 17.3983572895, "published": true}], "hash": "6d1af61aa6ed45f1280a1d2a099dd5c4", "id": 4}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "important-facts", "type": "clause", "offset": [4, 19]}, {"key": "concerning-this-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [20, 45]}, {"key": "an-officer", "type": "clause", "offset": [102, 112]}, {"key": "employee-of-the-corporation", "type": "definition", "offset": [117, 144]}, {"key": "applied-for", "type": "definition", "offset": [163, 174]}, {"key": "mutual-life-insurance-company", "type": "definition", "offset": [185, 214]}, {"key": "life-insurance-policy", "type": "definition", "offset": [232, 253]}, {"key": "exhibit-b", "type": "definition", "offset": [281, 290]}, {"key": "entered-into", "type": "clause", "offset": [339, 351]}, {"key": "insurance-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [367, 386]}, {"key": "exhibit-a", "type": "clause", "offset": [460, 469]}, {"key": "other-company", "type": "definition", "offset": [533, 546]}, {"key": "policy-of-insurance", "type": "clause", "offset": [557, 576]}, {"key": "subject-to-the", "type": "definition", "offset": [592, 606]}, {"key": "from-time-to-time", "type": "clause", "offset": [654, 671]}, {"key": "insurance-on-executive", "type": "clause", "offset": [705, 727]}, {"key": "the-terms-of-the-contract", "type": "clause", "offset": [817, 842]}, {"key": "for-purposes-of-this-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [913, 943]}, {"key": "pursuant-to-the-terms", "type": "clause", "offset": [948, 969]}, {"key": "assist-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [1008, 1018]}, {"key": "in-return", "type": "clause", "offset": [1053, 1062]}, {"key": "a-portion", "type": "definition", "offset": [1109, 1118]}, {"key": "policy-proceeds", "type": "definition", "offset": [1126, 1141]}, {"key": "upon-executive", "type": "definition", "offset": [1159, 1173]}, {"key": "by-the-corporation", "type": "clause", "offset": [1243, 1261]}, {"key": "to-transfer", "type": "clause", "offset": [1334, 1345]}, {"key": "certain-amounts", "type": "clause", "offset": [1346, 1361]}, {"key": "to-the-executive", "type": "clause", "offset": [1438, 1454]}, {"key": "designated-beneficiaries", "type": "clause", "offset": [1457, 1481]}, {"key": "to-enter", "type": "definition", "offset": [1533, 1541]}, {"key": "agreement-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [1591, 1604]}], "snippet": "The important facts concerning this Agreement are as follows:\nA. \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587. \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 (\u201cExecutive\u201d) is an officer and employee of the Corporation.\nB. Executive has applied for a Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company Increasing Whole Life Insurance Policy (\u201cPolicy\u201d) 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 (\u201cContract\u201d) 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 \u201cInsurer.\u201d From time to time Executive may acquire additional insurance on Executive\u2019s 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.\nC. 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\u2019s death.\nD. 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\u2019s designated beneficiaries; accordingly, the Corporation and Executive desire to enter into this Special Executive Supplemental Benefit Agreement for Executive and/or his designated beneficiaries.", "samples": [{"hash": "fRqefy6pPlt", "uri": "/contracts/fRqefy6pPlt#the-facts", "label": "Special Supplemental Benefit Agreement (K2 Inc)", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "hash": "feb2bdfd864e5b0c3966f9e85bb8bd84", "id": 5}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "protection-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [4, 17]}, {"key": "military-security", "type": "clause", "offset": [18, 35]}, {"key": "federal-republic-of-germany", "type": "clause", "offset": [43, 70]}, {"key": "this-article", "type": "definition", "offset": [71, 83]}, {"key": "granted-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [115, 125]}, {"key": "security-personnel", "type": "definition", "offset": [159, 177]}, {"key": "comparative-analysis", "type": "clause", "offset": [313, 333]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "clause", "offset": [334, 342]}, {"key": "technical-framework", "type": "clause", "offset": [347, 366]}, {"key": "security-laws", "type": "clause", "offset": [379, 392]}, {"key": "the-activities", "type": "clause", "offset": [440, 454]}, {"key": "security-services", "type": "definition", "offset": [491, 508]}, {"key": "use-of-force", "type": "clause", "offset": [529, 541]}, {"key": "armed-forces", "type": "definition", "offset": [543, 555]}, {"key": "act-of-1965", "type": "definition", "offset": [557, 568]}, {"key": "the-approach", "type": "clause", "offset": [573, 585]}, {"key": "the-authority", "type": "clause", "offset": [739, 752]}, {"key": "police-act", "type": "definition", "offset": [821, 831]}, {"key": "the-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [862, 869]}, {"key": "legal-problems", "type": "clause", "offset": [902, 916]}, {"key": "for-example", "type": "definition", "offset": [932, 943]}, {"key": "sufficient-authority", "type": "clause", "offset": [948, 968]}, {"key": "the-problem", "type": "clause", "offset": [1266, 1277]}], "snippet": "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.\nA. 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.\n1. 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\u2019s 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.\n2. The Problem of paramount", "samples": [{"hash": "44GpsZ24stQ", "uri": "/contracts/44GpsZ24stQ#the-facts", "label": "Nato Sofa Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "hash": "7d49b52a8224a842990c28ed087c9256", "id": 6}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-respondents", "type": "clause", "offset": [12, 27]}, {"key": "the-basis", "type": "clause", "offset": [88, 97]}, {"key": "the-company", "type": "definition", "offset": [166, 177]}, {"key": "relevant-time", "type": "definition", "offset": [224, 237]}, {"key": "resulting-from", "type": "definition", "offset": [341, 355]}, {"key": "blood-pressure", "type": "definition", "offset": [388, 402]}, {"key": "treatment-of-pain", "type": "definition", "offset": [488, 505]}, {"key": "reduction-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [514, 526]}, {"key": "reporting-company", "type": "definition", "offset": [603, 620]}, {"key": "according-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [622, 634]}, {"key": "chapter-5", "type": "definition", "offset": [635, 644]}, {"key": "the-securities-law", "type": "definition", "offset": [650, 668]}, {"key": "the-reports", "type": "clause", "offset": [683, 694]}, {"key": "enforcement-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [713, 734]}, {"key": "subject-to-the", "type": "definition", "offset": [811, 825]}, {"key": "reporting-duties", "type": "clause", "offset": [826, 842]}, {"key": "israeli-securities-law", "type": "definition", "offset": [860, 882]}, {"key": "defined-in-section", "type": "clause", "offset": [926, 944]}], "snippet": "The ISA and the Respondents agree that the following facts took place, which constitute the basis for entering this Arrangement:\n1.1 KITOV PHARMA LTD. (hereinafter: \u201cthe Company\u201d or \u201cRespondent 1\u201d) is a company that, at the relevant time, researched and developed combination drugs that treat two clinical conditions at the same time - pain resulting from degenerative arthritis and high blood pressure. The Company\u2019s flagship drug, KIT 302 (hereinafter: \u201cthe drug\u201d), is intended for the treatment of pain and the reduction of blood pressure in arthritis. The Company presently reports as a dual-listed reporting company, according to Chapter 5-C of the Securities Law. However, all the reports described in this Enforcement Agreement were made during a period in which the Company was a public Israeli company subject to the reporting duties set forth in the Israeli Securities Law. 1 In this Arrangement, \u201cproceedings\u201d - as defined in section 54A of the Securities Law.", "samples": [{"hash": "3w4C3sxiu61", "uri": "/contracts/3w4C3sxiu61#the-facts", "label": "Enforcement Arrangement (Kitov Pharma Ltd.)", "score": 28.6125941136, "published": true}], "hash": "97ce1e03454658e535f3a120ec16e4c0", "id": 7}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "wholly-owned", "type": "clause", "offset": [27, 39]}, {"key": "the-government", "type": "definition", "offset": [51, 65]}, {"key": "madhya-pradesh", "type": "definition", "offset": [69, 83]}, {"key": "special-leave", "type": "clause", "offset": [125, 138]}, {"key": "responsible-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [153, 168]}, {"key": "purchase-of-electricity", "type": "clause", "offset": [178, 201]}, {"key": "state-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [209, 217]}, {"key": "the-distribution", "type": "clause", "offset": [259, 275]}, {"key": "request-for-proposal", "type": "clause", "offset": [320, 340]}, {"key": "solar-energy", "type": "definition", "offset": [403, 415]}, {"key": "competitive-bidding", "type": "clause", "offset": [437, 456]}, {"key": "southeast-asia", "type": "definition", "offset": [483, 497]}, {"key": "the-e", "type": "clause", "offset": [544, 549]}, {"key": "successful-bidder", "type": "definition", "offset": [550, 567]}, {"key": "tariff-rates", "type": "definition", "offset": [611, 623]}, {"key": "the-bidder", "type": "clause", "offset": [625, 635]}, {"key": "private-limited", "type": "clause", "offset": [726, 741]}, {"key": "special-purpose-company", "type": "clause", "offset": [747, 770]}, {"key": "in-respect-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [848, 861]}, {"key": "other-companies", "type": "definition", "offset": [967, 982]}, {"key": "rates-applicable", "type": "clause", "offset": [1090, 1106]}, {"key": "entered-into", "type": "clause", "offset": [1259, 1271]}, {"key": "the-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [1287, 1300]}, {"key": "inter-alia", "type": "clause", "offset": [1302, 1312]}, {"key": "commissioning-activities", "type": "clause", "offset": [1333, 1357]}, {"key": "by-the-seller", "type": "clause", "offset": [1419, 1432]}], "snippet": "The appellant, which is \u201ca wholly owned company of the Government of Madhya Pradesh\u201d (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.", "samples": [{"hash": "5pkEgBVLRc4", "uri": "/contracts/5pkEgBVLRc4#the-facts", "label": "Power Purchase Agreement", "score": 29.8426728788, "published": true}], "hash": "b37d73e75f7c696d4d3adf621ef850a3", "id": 8}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-final", "type": "clause", "offset": [81, 90]}, {"key": "the-national", "type": "clause", "offset": [116, 128]}, {"key": "according-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [293, 305]}, {"key": "the-state", "type": "clause", "offset": [353, 362]}, {"key": "on-the-ballot", "type": "definition", "offset": [401, 414]}, {"key": "first-choice", "type": "definition", "offset": [434, 446]}, {"key": "purpose-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [504, 514]}, {"key": "the-opportunity", "type": "clause", "offset": [558, 573]}, {"key": "director-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [619, 630]}, {"key": "written-testimony", "type": "clause", "offset": [661, 678]}, {"key": "policy-committee", "type": "definition", "offset": [723, 739]}, {"key": "on-february", "type": "clause", "offset": [740, 751]}, {"key": "related-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [804, 814]}, {"key": "state-laws", "type": "clause", "offset": [1113, 1123]}, {"key": "to-ensure", "type": "clause", "offset": [1124, 1133]}, {"key": "and-support", "type": "clause", "offset": [1315, 1326]}, {"key": "emphasis-added", "type": "clause", "offset": [1363, 1377]}, {"key": "certificate-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1494, 1508]}, {"key": "in-alaska", "type": "clause", "offset": [1778, 1787]}, {"key": "into-effect", "type": "clause", "offset": [2096, 2107]}, {"key": "election-day", "type": "clause", "offset": [2228, 2240]}, {"key": "election-officials", "type": "definition", "offset": [2307, 2325]}, {"key": "provide-a", "type": "definition", "offset": [2333, 2342]}, {"key": "prior-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [2363, 2371]}, {"key": "declaratory-judgement", "type": "clause", "offset": [2418, 2439]}, {"key": "end-of-the-day", "type": "definition", "offset": [2680, 2694]}, {"key": "the-decision", "type": "clause", "offset": [2808, 2820]}, {"key": "final-determination", "type": "clause", "offset": [2880, 2899]}, {"key": "in-short", "type": "clause", "offset": [2929, 2937]}, {"key": "state-administrative-official", "type": "definition", "offset": [2942, 2971]}, {"key": "alaska-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [3013, 3023]}], "snippet": "There is no legitimate uncertainty as to whether to use the first-round count or the final-round count in computing the national popular vote. Indeed, it would be preposterous to interpret RCV to mean that a state is going to hand voters a ballot allowing them to rank presidential candidates according to their first, second, etc. preferences\u2014but that the state is then going to ignore every ranking on the ballot except the voter\u2019s first choice. Using only the first-choice count would negate the main purpose of adopting an RCV law, namely to give voters the opportunity to rank candidates. \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587, Executive Director of FairVote Minnesota, submitted written testimony to the Minnesota House Election Finance and Policy Committee on February 1, 2023 saying: \u201cI have read the opposing testimony related to RCV and National Popular Vote compatibility, and it is misleading and incorrect. The testimony comes from an organization opposed to both RCV and NPV [that is, Save Our States] and has a clear motive\u2014to hurt both reforms. Like Maine, which uses RCV for presidential elections and has clarified its state laws to ensure compatibility with electing presidential electors under NPV, Minnesota will do the same. I urge you to disregard the unproven, misleading argument that RCV and NPV are incompatible and support the NPV legislation before you.\u201d17 [Emphasis added] In 2021, Maine amended its RCV-for-President law to eliminate any arguable ambiguity by requiring that the state\u2019s Certificate of Ascertainment report the final-round RCV count. Alaska\u2019s current RCV law is not as explicit as Maine\u2019s. This will probably be of no practical importance because the Republican presidential nominee is almost certain to win an absolute majority of the first-choice votes in Alaska. When that happens, Alaska\u2019s RCV law specifies that the counting process stops\u2014thus making the count of first-choice votes equivalent to the final- round RCV count. Having said that, if this question of statutory interpretation is not clear in Alaska by the time when the National Popular Vote Compact comes into effect, RCV supporters in Alaska and other Alaska voters would undoubtedly demand a definitive statutory interpretation before Election Day as to how their RCV votes for President will be counted. If state election officials do not provide a satisfactory answer prior to Election Day, voters would undoubtedly seek a declaratory judgement from Alaska courts. In the extremely unlikely event that this question of statutory interpretation in Alaska was not settled prior to Election Day, the question would (assuming it mattered) be litigated in Alaska after Election Day. At the end of the day, Alaska\u2019s Certificate of Ascertainment will reflect the statutory interpretation made by Alaska courts. Whatever the decision, the National Popular Vote Compact requires that Alaska\u2019s \u201cfinal determination\u201d be treated as \u201cconclusive.\u201d In short, no state administrative official outside Alaska has any role interpreting Alaska law\u2014much less any \u201copportunities for manipulation.\u201d", "samples": [{"hash": "3JuFpYfPxmH", "uri": "/contracts/3JuFpYfPxmH#the-facts", "label": "National Popular Vote Agreement", "score": 21.5790554415, "published": true}], "hash": "95e02fcff6bd4aaf275c30464fc3a5fa", "id": 9}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-policies", "type": "clause", "offset": [65, 77]}, {"key": "assets-and-liabilities", "type": "definition", "offset": [148, 170]}, {"key": "the-national", "type": "clause", "offset": [174, 186]}, {"key": "this-policy", "type": "definition", "offset": [227, 238]}, {"key": "owned-and-controlled", "type": "definition", "offset": [278, 298]}, {"key": "the-mandate", "type": "clause", "offset": [316, 327]}, {"key": "orderly-sale", "type": "clause", "offset": [343, 355]}, {"key": "generation-assets", "type": "definition", "offset": [395, 412]}, {"key": "real-estate", "type": "definition", "offset": [414, 425]}, {"key": "independent-power-producers", "type": "definition", "offset": [464, 491]}, {"key": "contracts-with", "type": "clause", "offset": [493, 507]}, {"key": "the-objective", "type": "clause", "offset": [508, 521]}, {"key": "financial-obligations", "type": "clause", "offset": [545, 566]}, {"key": "contract-costs", "type": "clause", "offset": [580, 594]}, {"key": "the-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [680, 687]}, {"key": "ownership-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [713, 725]}, {"key": "manner-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [845, 854]}], "snippet": "On June 8, 2001, RA 9136 or the EPIRA was passed into law. Among the policies declared therein is the \u201corderly and transparent privatization of the assets and liabilities of the National Power Corporation (NPC).\u201d2 To carry out this policy, the EPIRA created PSALM, a government-owned and controlled corporation with the mandate to \u201cmanage 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.\u201d3 To enable PSALM to effectively discharge its functions under the law, it was allowed to \u201ctake ownership of all existing NPC generation assets, liabilities, IPP contracts, real estate, and all other disposable assets.\u201d4 On the manner of privatization of NPC assets, the EPIRA provides:", "samples": [{"hash": "4dsVXPXOKhg", "uri": "/contracts/4dsVXPXOKhg#the-facts", "label": "Joint Venture Agreement", "score": 19.8085391372, "published": true}], "hash": "381c9935966796b05ba9add71f04949b", "id": 10}], "next_curs": "ClISTGoVc35sYXdpbnNpZGVyY29udHJhY3Rzci4LEhZDbGF1c2VTbmlwcGV0R3JvdXBfdjU2IhJ0aGUtZmFjdHMjMDAwMDAwMGEMogECZW4YACAA", "clause": {"title": "THE FACTS", "size": 19, "parents": [], "children": [], "id": "the-facts", "related": [["future-activities-and-unknown-conditions", "FUTURE ACTIVITIES AND UNKNOWN CONDITIONS", "FUTURE ACTIVITIES AND UNKNOWN CONDITIONS"], ["your-warranties", "Your Warranties", "Your Warranties"], ["buyers-warranties", "Buyer\u2019s Warranties", "Buyer\u2019s Warranties"], ["mutual-warranties", "Mutual Warranties", "Mutual Warranties"], ["concealed-or-unknown-conditions", "Concealed or Unknown Conditions", "Concealed or Unknown Conditions"]], "related_snippets": [], "updated": "2025-07-07T12:37:53+00:00", "also_ask": [], "drafting_tip": "", "explanation": "The \"THE FACTS\" clause serves to set out the agreed-upon background information and circumstances relevant to the contract or agreement. It typically outlines the context, such as the identities of the parties, the history of their relationship, and the events leading up to the contract. By clearly stating these facts, the clause ensures that both parties have a mutual understanding of the situation, which helps prevent misunderstandings and provides a factual basis for interpreting the rest of the agreement."}, "json": true, "cursor": ""}}