Sentences with phrase «facts under dispute»

Not exact matches

In fact, when deprived of an explicit metaphysical - moral underpinning, the ideologies of either capitalism or socialism themselves take on cultish form, complete with secularized high priests, denominational orthodoxies, doctrinal disputes, and ritual excommunications all under the garb of social analysis.

If the last generation, beholding the first, and seeing it almost sink under its burden of awe and fear, were to find it in its heart to say: «It is impossible to understand why they should take it so hard, for the whole is not heavier than that one could easily take it up and run with it,» there will doubtless be someone to answer: «You are welcome to run with it if you like; but you ought at all events make sure that what you run with really is that of which we are speaking; for there is no disputing the fact that it is easy enough to run with the wind.»

You have mentioned Pogba, Messi et al when making your point but lets conveniently overlook the fact these type of players are a one off, and let us also forget about the hundred of EPL youngsters hyped to high heavens in recent years off the back of a few spectacular performances only for them to flounder and disappear under rye scrutiny and pressure of expectation, the latest been the kid from Aston Villa who was meant to set the league alight this season but who has now totally flopped... nobody is disputing Iwobi's quality, but he still needs nurturing and care, AFC is a team who is expected to win things and the pressure can break a player, am dead sure you were drooling at the mouth about Ox few years back as you would have done with Walcott too, but 4 years and 10 years after we are still awaiting them to fulfill their potentials....

Regardless of the type of legal proceeding or which side uses scientific evidence, the forensic scientist must be able to write a report and testify under oath about: what facts or items of evidence were analyzed or tested; what tests or analyses were used; how valid or reliable those tests or analyses have been found to be by other courts; why and how the forensic scientist was qualified to conduct those tests or analyses; and, what the results of the tests or analyses were and how those results are relevant to the issues in dispute.

(1) A credit services organization, its salespersons, agents, and representatives, and independent contractors who sell or attempt to sell the services of a credit services organization may not do any of the following: (a) conduct any business regulated by this chapter without first: (i) securing a certificate of registration from the division; and (ii) unless exempted under Section 13 -21-4, posting a bond, letter of credit, or certificate of deposit with the division in the amount of $ 100,000; (b) make a false statement, or fail to state a material fact, in connection with an application for registration with the division; (c) charge or receive any money or other valuable consideration prior to full and complete performance of the services the credit services organization has agreed to perform for the buyer; (d) dispute or challenge, or assist a person in disputing or challenging an entry in a credit report prepared by a consumer reporting agency without a factual basis for believing and obtaining a written statement for each entry from the person stating that that person believes that the entry contains a material error or omission, outdated information, inaccurate information, or unverifiable information; (e) charge or receive any money or other valuable consideration solely for referral of the buyer to a retail seller who will or may extend credit to the buyer, if the credit that is or will be extended to the buyer is upon substantially the same terms as those available to the general public; (f) make, or counsel or advise any buyer to make, any statement that is untrue or misleading and that is known, or that by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading, to a credit reporting agency or to any person who has extended credit to a buyer or to whom a buyer is applying for an extension of credit, with respect to a buyer's creditworthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity; (g) make or use any untrue or misleading representations in the offer or sale of the services of a credit services organization or engage, directly or indirectly, in any act, practice, or course of business that operates or would operate as fraud or deception upon any person in connection with the offer or sale of the services of a credit services organization; and (h) transact any business as a credit services organization, as defined in Section 13 -21-2, without first having registered with the division by paying an annual fee set pursuant to Section 63J -1-504 and filing proof that it has obtained a bond or letter of credit as required by Subsection (2).

Regarding eugenics, you forgot the overwhelming similarity that they were both widespread, media - friendly, commonly - believed «facts» that proved to be false (whether or not Global Warming is false is obviously debatable, but he's operating with that disclaimer when he makes the comparison, and thus it is necessary to operate under it when disputing his claims.)

So your avoidance of the evidence that disputes your position accompanied with your continued avoidance of any acknowledgement of your habit of posting under multiple names will mean I and others will continue to question your motivation or interest in the subject (other than a desire to be a pain in the backside by avoiding all the inconvenient facts).

While commercial parties may turn to arbitration as the choice dispute resolution mechanism in its transaction document, parties are advised to be alive to the fact that by adopting certain institutional arbitration rules within the arbitration agreement and conducting the arbitration under the auspices of those institutions, they will be taken to have agreed to waive their right to recourse against the award by way of appeal on a question of law in the context of domestic arbitrations.

The fact of the administrative state is predicated by the fact that parliament (both federal and provincial) and the courts can not possibly apply and administer the myriad of rules that govern day to day life or settle the thousands of disputes that arise under the endless statutes and regulations.

However, Rule 29 (3) also includes sensitive subjects such as the issues in dispute and admissions of fact that also arise in the court form that defence lawyers must file, prior to the conduct of all pretrial conferences, under Rule 26 (1).

Furthermore, although it is true that the procedure laid down in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument for cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the former provides the latter with the points of interpretation of EU law necessary in order for them to decide the disputes before them, the fact remains that when there is no judicial remedy under national law against the decision of a court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal is, in principle, obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before it...

Where there is a dispute about any fact the court shall receive evidence under s. 724 (3)(a) and the prosecutor must establish any aggravating fact beyond a reasonable doubt under s. 724 (3)(e).

Therefore, the Judge's position is that it is not the provision of a service covered by Directive 93/13 that brings the fees under EU law, but the fact that the national judge applies EU law on the merits of the dispute.

The Court of Protection Rules have been amended to accommodate applications to that court under s 21A of MCA 2005 arising from the operation of the scheme, for example an application which disputes a finding by a «supervisory authority», such as a local authority, that a care home resident is in fact deprived of his or her liberty within the meaning of Art 5 of the Convention.

The Court of Appeal recently overturned a summary judgment, finding that the motion judge erred by allowing the dispute to proceed by way of summary judgement due to the fact that the case presented serious evidentiary difficulties which could not be properly addressed in the context of a simplified procedure under rule 76 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.

The question is: do the documents in dispute, ie, MSP and Pharmanet, come withing the terms of either Rule 7 - 1 (1)(a), ie, documents that can be used by a party of record to prove or disprove a material fact or that will be referred to at trial or, if not, do they come under category 7 - 1 (11), generally, in the vernacular, referred to as the Guano documents... There is no question that there is a higher duty on a party requesting documents under the second category... that in addition to requesting, they must explain and satisfy either the party being demanded or the court, if an order is sought, with an explanation «with reasonable specificity that indicates the reason why such additional documents or classes of documents should be disclosed», and again, there is no doubt that the new Rules have limited the obligation for production in the first instance to the first category that I have described and has reduced or lessened the obligation for production in general...

Amicable Negotiation The parties agree that, both during and after the performance of their responsibilities under this Agreement, each of them shall make bona fide efforts to resolve any disputes arising between them by amicable negotiations and provide frank, candid and timely disclosure of all relevant facts, information and documents to facilitate those negotiations.

However, if there are significant material facts in dispute it is much safer, and probably just as cost effective, to have the action decided by way of a summary trial under Rule 76.

The application had been properly founded under subrule 14.05 (3)(h), no material facts in dispute, and under subrules 14.05 (3)(d) and (g), the determination of rights following the interpretation of a contract and relief ancillary to those rights.

Once a potential means of abridgment appropriate to the facts and matters in dispute has been identified, the court then explains to the parties the rights and procedural options that would normally be available to them at an unabridged trial and explains how those rights and options are being limited by the trial process under discussion.

While REALTORS ® are encouraged to resolve all disputes through the arbitration facilities of their Board or Boards, the intent of Article 17 is that only disputes arising from facts occurring after each of the parties has become a REALTOR ® are subject to mandatory arbitration under Article 17 of the Code of Ethics.