Sentences with phrase «signature requirements do»

Not exact matches

Each person whose signature appears below hereby constitutes Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss, and each of them singly, his true and lawful attorneys - in - fact with full power to sign on behalf of such person, in the capacities indicated below, any and all amendments to this registration statement and any subsequent related registration statement filed pursuant to Rule 462 (b) under the Securities Act of 1933, and generally to do all such things in the name and on behalf of such person, in the capacities indicated below, to enable the Registrant to comply with the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and all requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder, hereby ratifying and confirming the signature of such person as it may be signed by said attorneys - in - fact, or any of them, on any and all amendments to this registration statement or any such subsequent related registration statement.

Impediment of candidature to capable and interested people because they don't fit some requirements implanted by the majority parties as millions of signatures, of high sums of money, and if they fit the requirements the media lobbies won't support most of the candidates because many of them are happy with the benefits given by big parties.

However, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that certain ballot access requirements, such as filing fees and submitting a certain number of valid petition signatures do not constitute additional qualifications and thus few Constitutional restrictions exist as to how harsh ballot access laws can be.

Stout, who met the signature requirement to appear on the Conservative line, said he will run on that ballot line alone in the general election if he does not win the Democratic primary.

These are called opportunity to ballot petitions and are substantially the same as designating petitions (i.e., the petitions are held to the same signature and filing requirements, etc.), except that they do not require a candidate to be named.

To run as an independent, all you need to do is fill in the nomination forms with the AEC, meet the Constitutional and legislative requirements (in particular section 44 of the Constitution), pay the nomination fee (currently $ 2,000.00) and provide signatures of electors proving that you do have enough support for some kind of attempt (I believe it is 100 electors, but I haven't checked the AEC website for this detail).

This week, supporters of Blake's main rival, Marsha Michael, a court attorney favored by the Bronx Democratic County Committee, filed specific objections seeking to invalidate his petition signatures and disqualifying him because he doesn't meet state constitution's residency requirements.

Commissioners voted unanimously at a meeting to invalidate McMillan and his line, the Rent Is 2 Damn High Party, declaring the petitions submitted did not meet the required 15,000 - signature requirement.

First, it is rare that a major party is pushed off the ballot due to signature challenges (meaning that he didn't collect enough valid signatures on his nominating petitions in order to meet the legal requirement).

The 5,000 signature requirement is not terribly difficult but Kentucky is a state in which the minor parties traditionally don't get on the ballot in the odd - year gubernatorial election years.

The PenFed Platinum Rewards VISA Signature ® Card is one of the best gas credit cards for maximizing gas rewards if you don't mind fulfilling eligibility requirements.

Of course, the Fidelity ® Rewards Visa Signature ® Card does make you jump through one hoop to get the 2 % rewards rate — the requirement that rewards be deposited into a Fidelity account.

The Commissioner did not raise the provision in subsection 10 (c) of the ETA that allows a «Commonwealth entity» to require any signature to meet its «information technology requirements.»

On the other hand, since the Getup decision, the Australian statute has not been amended to change the onus (though it was amended in 2011 to add a «proven reliable in fact» test to be consistent with the UNCITRAL Electronic Communications Convention) and there still do not seem to be any information technology requirements for electronic signatures in the enrolment provisions.

Today in Ontario one does not need a signature on a real estate transfer (Land Registration Reform Act s. 21), so is it necesary to impose an open - ended technology requirement?

With respect to signatures, if one imposes a reliability requirement, is there not a risk that some e-signatures will be held invalid for insufficient reliability, even if everyone knows who did them and why?

Thus articles 6 (on writing requirements), 7 (on signatures) and 8 (on originals) all have a paragraph reading «The provisions of this article do not apply to...».

They wanted to be sure that legal rules that appeared to require ink and paper, such as writing and signature requirements, did not stand in the way of electronic communications.

He makes the valid point that meeting the test (thus satisfying the legal requirement to have a signature) does not necessarily make the signed document enforceable.

I am aware of WP Signature, but it doesn't satisfy the requirements for in - person signatures using a tablet.

The majority of commenters on this topic, however, argued that a signed acknowledgment would be administratively burdensome, inconsistent with the intent of the Administrative Simplification requirements of HIPAA, impossible to achieve for incapacitated individuals, difficult to achieve for covered entities that do not have direct contact with patients, inconsistent with other notice requirements under other laws, misleading to individuals who might interpret their signature as an agreement, inimical to the concept of permitting uses and disclosures without authorization, and an insufficient substitute for authorization.

Without the broker's signature, the listing agreement didn't meet the state's statutory requirements.

The defendant then argued that, even if a contract existed between the parties, the plaintiff's acceptance of the contract terms by text message does not satisfy the signature requirement of the Statute of Frauds.