Sentences with phrase «because of an agreement between the parties»

any mediation (whether or not by the tribunal) will be unnecessary because of an agreement between the parties about the proceeding or for any other reason;

Not exact matches

«Finally, the link which the provisions of Chapter 13 of the envisaged agreement display with trade between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore is also specific in nature because a breach of the provisions concerning social protection of workers and environmental protection, set out in that chapter, authorises the other Party — in accordance with the rule of customary international law codified in Article 60 (1) of the Convention on the law of treaties, -LSB-...]-- to terminate or suspend the liberalisation, provided for in the other provisions of the envisaged agreement, of that trade.»

This is because the new version of the EEA Agreement established a new procedure to preserve the homogenous interpretation of the agreement through the EFTA Joint Committee monitoring the evolution of the Court of Justice's case law, and a mechanism analogous to the preliminary reference procedure whereby the Court of Justice would be asked to give a ruling on the interpretation of relevant rules in disputes between the Contracting Parties (Articles 105 - 111 of the EEA AgAgreement established a new procedure to preserve the homogenous interpretation of the agreement through the EFTA Joint Committee monitoring the evolution of the Court of Justice's case law, and a mechanism analogous to the preliminary reference procedure whereby the Court of Justice would be asked to give a ruling on the interpretation of relevant rules in disputes between the Contracting Parties (Articles 105 - 111 of the EEA Agagreement through the EFTA Joint Committee monitoring the evolution of the Court of Justice's case law, and a mechanism analogous to the preliminary reference procedure whereby the Court of Justice would be asked to give a ruling on the interpretation of relevant rules in disputes between the Contracting Parties (Articles 105 - 111 of the EEA AgreementAgreement).

They expressed the view that it will normally be inexpedient to grant interim relief in aid of an ICSID arbitration, because the ICSID rules exclude the possibility of such relief unless the parties have agreed otherwise and those rules form part of the arbitration agreement to which the court will give effect as they would any other valid agreement between the parties to a dispute.

Separation agreements can also be useful because the more issues that are resolved by way of agreement between the parties, the less there is to fight about in court in the divorce case.

Two types of error may permit rectification: (a) both parties subscribe to a common mistake that it accurately records the terms of their antecedent agreement; rectification is predicated on the applicant showing the parties had reached a prior agreement whose terms are definite and ascertainable; the agreement was still effective when executed; the document fails to record accurately that prior agreement; and, if rectified as proposed, the document would carry out the agreement: (b) where the claimed mistake is unilateral ̶ either because the document formalizes a unilateral act (such as the creation of a trust), or where intended to record an agreement between parties, but one party says that it does not accurately do so, while the other party says it does.

This is not only because the agreements provided simultaneously for the limitation of generic market entry and for significant value transfers, but is also due to some further aggravating factors: the payments amounted to the expected profits of the generics had they entered the market; the real purpose was not to resolve the underlying patent dispute between the parties insofar as the agreements did not provide for market entry upon their expiration; and the content of the agreements went beyond the scope of Lundbeck's patents, since they were intended to prevent the sales of all types of generic citalopram while Lundbeck could not have obtained the same outcome through the enforcement of its patents.

Two types of error may permit rectification: (a) both parties subscribe to an instrument under a common mistake that it accurately records the terms of their antecedent agreement; rectification is predicated upon the applicant showing that the parties had reached a prior agreement whose terms are definite and ascertainable; that the agreement was still effective when the instrument was executed; that the instrument fails to record accurately that prior agreement; and that, if rectified as proposed, the instrument would carry out the agreement; (b) where the claimed mistake is unilateral ̶ either because the instrument formalizes a unilateral act (such as the creation of a trust), or where the instrument was intended to record an agreement between parties, but one party says that the instrument does not accurately do so, while the other party says it does.

Obtaining independent legal advice is important because it strengthens the validity of the agreement and may mediate any power imbalances present between the parties, as discussed in Leopold v Leopold.

In each of these contexts, the law recognizes that agreements between spouses or between a pregnant woman and third parties ought not to be treated the same as other contracts, because of the nature of these agreements and the circumstances in which they were created.

For instance, the Quebec Court of Appeal recently upheld a judgment of the Quebec Superior Court in which the court, by declaration, modified a clause in a loan agreement because the evidence revealed a discrepancy between the real intention of the parties and the wording of the contract.

HSH submitted that in this case the assumption must be displaced, because the agreements between the parties made it clear that different aspects of the relationship were governed by different agreements which contained conflicting provisions as to law and jurisdiction.

Because of the decentralized and immutable nature of transactions, this becomes an ideal venue for executing agreements between two parties.

Because of the dominance of a litigation model in native title negotiations, the relationship between the State and the native title claim group begins with the filing of a native title claim and tends to end with the resolution of that claim either through litigation or by agreement of the parties.

Because collaborative law focuses on reaching a mutually beneficial agreement between the parties in a non-adversarial way, the process itself already has hints of conscious uncoupling.

NAR CEO Dale Stinton has previously noted that the content of realtor.com and third - party sites is «wildly different» because the operating agreement between NAR and Move prohibits Move from incorporating content similar to those of third - party sites.

The court also observed that just because a broker has signed the portion of the document specifying the commission agreement with the seller, it doesn't make the broker a party to the contract between the buyer and the seller and thus subject to an attorney fee provision.