Sentences with phrase «rule of reason unless»

The court stated that inquiry is made under Rule of Reason unless the challenged conduct constitutes «agreements or practices which because of their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any redeeming virtue are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused or the business excuse for their use.»

Not exact matches

Program rules require all recipients meet work requirements unless they are exempt because of age or disability or another specific reason.

Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the district school superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist, or reduces the number of employees on a districtwide basis for financial reasons.

Older dogs will generally be less active than younger dogs so as a rule will require a less energy dense dog food, unless of course the dog's appetite is reduced for some reason.

A workplace rule which requires employees to speak only English is unlawful unless it is necessary to ensure the safe or efficient operation of the employer's business and is put in place for nondiscriminatory reasons.

The general rule is the a national government has sovereign immunity from the claims of everyone for any reason, unless that nation's law expressly permits such lawsuit, and even when such lawsuits are allowed, they are only allowed on the terms and conditions of the government being sued when it waives its sovereign immunity in whole or in part.

Rule 57 (10) states that «A plaintiff who recovers a sum within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court under the Small Claims Act is not entitled to costs, other than disbursements, unless the court finds that there was sufficient reason for bringing the proceeding in the Supreme Court and so orders.»

The guiding principles state that judgments in the Family Division should be publicised unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary; children and incapacitated and vulnerable adults should not be identified unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary; and anonymity should not go beyond this unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary (Administration of Justice Act 1960, s 12; the Children Act 1989, s 103, Sch 13; and the Family Proceedings Rules 2010, r 27.

For example, the GDPR requires that an organization notify regulators and affected individuals within 72 hours of becoming aware of an information security breach unless the organization can establish that there was a good reason it did not meet the 72 - hour rule under all of the circumstances;

The object and meaning of the rule is this: that as, by reason of the complexity and difficulty of our law, litigation can only be properly conducted by professional men, it is absolutely necessary that a man, in order to prosecute his rights or to defend himself from an improper claim, should have recourse to the assistance of professional lawyers,... to use a vulgar phrase, that he should be able to make a clean breast of it to the gentleman whom he consults with a view to the prosecution of his claim, or the substantiating of his defence... that he should be able to place unrestricted and unbounded confidence in the professional agent, and that the communications he so makes to him should be kept secret, unless with his consent (for it is his privilege, and not the privilege of the confidential agent), that he should be enabled properly to conduct his litigation.

[11] In my view, unless and until the intention to rely upon a particular expert in a particular field is declared by delivery of a report in accordance with the timelines established by the Rules, in the absence of a compelling reason an early incursion into this aspect of the solicitor's brief will not be justified.

The Supreme Court of Vermont reasoned that Century 21 failed to meet that burden, and ruled that an award could not be vacated on an issue of law unless it was demonstrated that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law.

In these respects, the final rule reflects current Regulation X, because under current Regulation X, creditors are bound to the terms of the RESPA GFE provided to the consumer by the mortgage broker unless one of the six legitimate reasons for revisions apply (e.g., borrower - requested change, a changed circumstance).