THE REPLY Sample Clauses

THE REPLY. If the applicant disagrees with the Written Opinion, the applicant has a short time to reply by amending the application and/or making arguments (generally 2 months). If time permits, the examiner may issue a second Written Opinion, taking into consideration the applicant’s response.

THE REPLY. [24] The Claimant reiterated that the Letter of Xxxxx dated the 8th December 2000 constituted an agreement for a lease between the parties. Xxxxx’x Auto Rental denied that there was any uncertainty about the premises subject to the Agreement of the lease and asserted that the premises comprised 4046 square metres. [25] The Claimant also denied that the full amount of the rent was undetermined. It contended that the Defendant was responsible for fixing the service charge/additional rent and advising the Claimant of same; this they failed and/or neglected to do. [26] It was also denied that the terms of the Agreement were not settled; the Claimant pleaded that modification to the Agreement would not have materially affected its terms. [27] The Claimant averred that it paid rent to the Defendant for 10 years which the latter cannot now deny. If there was no tenancy then the monies received by the Defendant was mesne profits. [28] The Claimant also pleaded that the sum of US $7,282.80 comprised US $6,332.67 as rent and US $949.93 as VAT. Further, the Defendant never asked for more VAT over the period. [29] The Claimant averred that the NCL was the principal contractor under the Contract for the construction of the airport while Calmaquipp Caribbean Limited was a subcontractor. The latter occupied NCL’s site because of a failure on the Defendant’s part to provide a site for Calmaquipp Caribbean Limited. No rent was received by the Claimant from Calmaquipp Caribbean Limited for the use and occupation of NCL’s buildings. It was also denied that the Defendant only became aware of the Claimant’s occupation of the buildings in 2004. [30] The Claimant asserted that the issue of their occupation only arose with the change of government in 2001. [31] The Claimant pleaded further that the fact that said lands is in a restricted area does not preclude the Defendant from renting it; further, the legislation cited by the Defendant does not prohibit the lease of the land by the Defendant who must have taken into account the fact that the land was restricted before deciding to rent it. [32] In order to determine the issues that arise in this case, a careful review and analysis of all the evidence in this case is necessary. I have set out below a summary of the evidence adduced on behalf of the Claimant and the Defendant.

THE REPLY. Each Claimant may, within 15 Working Days after delivery of a Response, deliver to the relevant Respondent a reply specifically admitting or not admitting any of the claims and contentions in that Response (a "REPLY") and, subject to any such Reply, a Claimant will be deemed to have considered each of those claims and contentions.