Sentences with phrase «amount upon failure»

Not exact matches

luteal insufficiency: failure of the corpus luteum to produce adequate amounts of progesterone upon ovulation; often caused by anovulation.

Upon such termination, the lessor may recover from the lessee: (1) The worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination; (2) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided; (3) Subject to subdivision (c), the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and (4) Any other amount necessary to compensate the lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the lessee's failure to perform his obligations under the lease or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom.

Resident's failure to timely vacate upon any such termination shall be a default under the lease and monthly rent shall be calculated at the full Lease amount in assessing any damages or costs.

Failure to Include an Issue in a Pretrial Statement In Arizona, a divorced individual with a spousal maintenance obligation can ask the court for a modification if there are significant changes to their circumstances and their ability to cover the agreed upon amount financially.

As a result, at trial a jury is specifically instructed that they can not reduce the amount of compensation based upon a failure to wear a helmet.

A failure to draft prudently may result in the employer being found liable for common law reasonable notice requirements instead of the agreed upon amount in the termination clause.

There was no specific allegation that a failure to prevent unsupervised access to the steps by a child of three years and nine months amounted to a breach of the duty imposed upon the appellant of HSWA 1974, s 3 (1).

594 DOS 01 DOS v. Walker - deposits; failure to appear at hearing; failure to pay judgment; failure to cooperate with DOS investigation; notary public; proper business practices; broker commingles funds by placing deposits in operating account; broker allows escrow account to be overdrawn on numerous occasions; broker uses deposit for separate, unrelated business investment; broker fails to pay judgment without presenting an explanation or excuse for failure to pay judgment; broker fails to cooperate with DOS investigation by failing to respond to and comply with letter directing him to appear for a conference and to provide certain documents; broker fails to notify DOS of new address upon closing office; DOS fails to prove that salesperson improperly held herself out to be real estate broker associated with corporate broker, that the broker made misrepresentations to the purchasers regarding payments they were required to make toward the purchase, that some checks were returned for insufficient funds, that the broker failed to make certain required payments, that the broker properly failed to make certain other deposits and that the broker gave a postdated deposit check which could not be cashed due to insufficient funds; representative broker's and corporate broker's licenses revoked, return of deposits in the amount of $ 400.00 and $ 3,173.83 ordered with interest, civil judgment to be fully satisfied; salesperson fined $ 1,000.00 and notary commission suspended for four months

107 DOS 98 Matter of DOS v. Sosis - subject matter jurisdiction; due process; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; deposits; fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction if at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced by proper service of a notice of hearing and complaint the party was (i) licensed to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (ii) an applicant for either a license or for the renewal of a license to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (iii) eligible to automatically renew the prior license under the two - year limitation provision of RPL § 441 (2); ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper notice of hearing; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restitution

79 DOS 99 Matter of DOS v. Pagano - disclosure of agency relationships; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; unauthorized practice of law; unearned commissions; vicarious liability; fraudulent practice; jurisdiction; ex parte hearing may proceed upon proof of proper service; DOS has jurisdiction after expiration of respondents» licenses as acts of misconduct occurred and the proceedings were commenced while the respondents were licensed; licensee fails to timely provide seller client with agency disclosure form prior to entering into listing agreement and fails to timely provide agency disclosure form to buyer upon first substantive contact; broker fails to make it clear for which party he is acting; broker violates 19 NYCRR 175.24 by using exclusive right to sell listing agreement without mandatory definitions of «exclusive right to sell» and «exclusive agency»; broker breaches fiduciary duties to seller clients by misleading them as to buyer's ability to financially consummate the transaction; broker breaches his fiduciary duty to seller by referring seller to the attorney who represented the buyers when he knew or should have known such attorney could not properly protect seller's interests; improper for broker to use listing agreements providing for broker to retain one half of any deposit if forfeited by buyer as such forfeiture clause could, by its terms, allow broker to retain part of the deposit when broker did not earn a commission; broker must conduct business under name as it appears on license; broker engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in preparing contracts for purchase and sale of real estate which did not contain a clause making it subject to the approval of the parties» attorneys and were not a form recommended by a joint bar / real estate board committee; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency in using sales contract which purported to change the terms of the listing agreement to include a higher commission; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency in using contracts of sale which were unclear, ambiguous, vague and incomplete; broker failed to amend purchase agreement to reflect amendment to increase deposit amount; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness in back - dating purchase agreements; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness in participating in scheme to have seller hold undisclosed second mortgage and to mislead first mortgagee about the purchaser's financial ability to purchase; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness by claiming unearned commission and filing affidavit of entitlement for unearned commission; DOS fails to establish by substantial evidence that respondent acted as undisclosed dual agent; corporate broker bound by the knowledge acquired by and is responsible for acts committed by its licensees within the actual or apparent scope of their authority; corporate and individual brokers» licenses revoked, no action taken on application for renewal until proof of payment of sum of $ 2,000.00 plus interests for deposits unlawfully retained