CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES Clause Samples

The "Claims of the Parties" clause defines the rights and procedures for each party to assert claims against the other under the agreement. It typically outlines what constitutes a valid claim, the process for submitting claims, and any limitations or requirements, such as timeframes or documentation needed. This clause ensures that both parties have a clear and fair mechanism for raising and resolving disputes or grievances, thereby promoting transparency and reducing the risk of unresolved conflicts.
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. Neville filed the Action (defined below)1 against QED Manufacturing and ▇▇▇▇▇. Specifically, Neville asserted that QED Manufacturing breached the parties’ employment agreement by firing Neville. Neville further sought both a declaratory judgment and constructive trust based on the sale of Lawn Solutions of Texas, Inc. Neville’s claim against ▇▇▇▇▇ was based on an alter ego theory. 2 Defendants denied Neville’s allegations and sought a declaratory judgment. Defendants specifically alleged that Neville had substantially contributed to QED Manufacturing’s loss of business and that Neville’s termination was therefore just. Defendants also counterclaimed statutory fraud against Neville based on the sale of Lawn Solutions of Texas, Inc. Under the employment and purchase agreements between the parties, Plaintiff requested that the Action be mediated. During mediation, the parties agreed to release all claims against each other arising out of and relating to the Action. Accordingly, the parties agree that:
View Source
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. 1. The Settling Defendants and/or their Affiliates have been involved, together and separately, in facilitating Refund Anticipation Loans (“RALs”) at some point from at least 1992 to the present. A RAL is a patented method by which tax customers, for a fee, can take a loan that is secured by and expected to be repaid from the anticipated proceeds of their tax refunds. 2. On January 22, 2003, a class action was filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County (the “Court”) against some of the Settling Defendants captioned D▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, et al. v. H & R Block, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 03-C-134) (the “Cummins Action”). A Second Amended Complaint was filed on October 22, 2004. The Second Amended Complaint alleged that the Settling Defendants, among others, violated the West Virginia credit service organization statute, W. Va. § 46A-6C-1 et seq., breached fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs, violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, breached their contractual obligations to plaintiffs and were unjustly enriched. On December 30, 2004, the Court appointed M▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, I▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ and L▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ as class representatives and B▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of B▇▇▇▇▇ & G▇▇▇▇▇▇, LLP, class counsel (“Coordinating Counsel”). The Court certified a class in the Cummins Action that included all West Virginia residents who obtained Refund Anticipation Loans through any “H&R Block” office in West Virginia from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2004, as to all claims contained in the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. A copy of the class certification order is attached as Exhibit A. 3. On June 13, 1995, a class action was filed in the Circuit Court of Mobile City, Alabama against some of the Settling Defendants captioned as M▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. H&R Block, Inc. et al., Case No. CV-95-2067 (Circuit Court of Mobile City, Ala.) (the “M▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Action”). The plaintiffs allege that certain of the Settling Defendants herein breached fiduciary duties to plaintiffs, breached their contractual obligations to plaintiffs and were unjustly enriched by offering RALs. On July 11, 2003, the Court appointed L▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and G▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ as class representatives. The Court appointed S▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, W. L▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of T▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & Hedge, PC; M▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, A▇▇▇▇ & R▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇; and S▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of Levy, Angstreich, Finney, Baldante, R▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Coren, P.C., as class counsel in the M▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Action. The Court certified two classes in the
View Source
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. A. Defendants market and indirectly, including through retailers, sell, among other things, the Grand Theft Auto series of video game titles. In or about October 2004, Defendants released a game in this series entitled Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for use on the Sony “PlayStation 2”TM video game console. In or about June 2005, Defendants released versions of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas playable on personal computers and on Microsoft XboxTM video game consoles. B. Plaintiffs contend that the copies of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas manufactured and distributed before July 20, 2005, contained elements that, if modified and combined by a player using third-party modification software and/or hardware, could display the clothed animated male protagonist of the game engaging in simulated sexual intercourse with nude animated women. These scenes have come to be referred to as the “Hot Coffee” scenes. C. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants defrauded Plaintiffs and violated consumer fraud statutes by misleading consumers of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as to the game discs’ content by including the Hot Coffee elements on the distributed discs and by marketing the game under an “M” (Mature) rating, when, Plaintiffs allege, the disc should have been rated as “AO” (Adults Only) because of the existence of the Hot Coffee elements on the distributed game discs. Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants were unjustly enriched because Defendants received consumers’ money that would not rightly be Defendants because, had the game disc been rated properly as AO, Defendants would not have been able to sell the game at all through mass retailers, who would not have carried an AO game. Finally, Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants were negligent by including the Hot Coffee elements in the distributed game, rather than removing the Hot Coffee elements entirely. D. Defendants do not dispute that the elements that were modified and combined to display the Hot Coffee content were present on the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas game discs manufactured before July 20, 2005, but Defendants vigorously deny each and every one of Plaintiffs’ allegations of improper conduct and deny having any
View Source
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. A. On or about February 24, 2005, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed the Action (as defined below) against Defendants. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A 56:8-1 et seq. B. All of the claims in the Action arise out of allegations that Defendants’ label on the Tropicana Peach Papaya Juice Drink violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiff has sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. C. Defendants deny all of these allegations and state that the label on the product at issue is not misleading, false or deceptive in any manner and is in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, by and through his counsel, has conducted an investigation of the facts and has analyzed the relevant legal issues. While Plaintiff and his counsel believe that the claims asserted in this Action have merit, they have concluded that the Settlement Agreement will achieve the desired relief sought by this Action in the most expeditious and efficient manner practicable, and that such relief would be received much sooner than would be possible were the claims asserted to be litigated successfully through trial and appeal. Accordingly, Plaintiff desires to resolve his claims asserted against Defendants. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, by and through their counsel, also have conducted an investigation of the facts and analyzed the relevant legal issues. Defendants vigorously deny that they engaged in any misrepresentation or unlawful, unfair, fraudulent or deceptive act, engaged in any false advertising, or otherwise violated any law or committed any actionable misconduct, and they assert that they have substantial, meritorious factual and legal defenses to all claims alleged and that such claims are without merit. Defendants also have weighed the risks and potential costs of continued litigation of the Action against the benefits of the proposed settlement, and desire to resolve the claims asserted against them. F. The parties and their counsel believe that, in consideration of all the circumstances and after prolonged and adversarial arms-length settlement negotiations between counsel, the proposed settlement embodied in this Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the parties. G. The parties intend that the proposed settlement embodied ...
View Source
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. A. SONY BMG markets and, directly and indirectly, including through retailers, sells, among other things, compact discs (“CDs”) containing music from a wide variety of genres. During the period beginning on August 1, 2003 through the present, some, but not all, of the CD titles marketed and sold by SONY BMG, contained, in addition to tracks of music, software (referred to herein as “Content Protection Software”) that, when the CDs were inserted into computers with CD player/recorder drives, enable consumers to transfer the music to their computers, from which consumers could make specified authorized uses (including transferring the music to portable devices and copying the music on no more than three (3) blank CDs). B. SONY BMG used two types of Content Protection Software on CDs during the Class Period, “MediaMax” and “XCP.” Two versions of “MediaMax” — MediaMax The MediaMax 3.0 and MediaMax 5.0 software included on SONY BMG CDs sold to consumers during the Class Period will be referred to as the “MediaMax Software,” and a SONY BMG CD or copy thereof containing such MediaMax Software will be referred to herein as a “MediaMax CD.” Various versions of “XCP” were designed and licensed to SONY BMG by F4I. The XCP versions included on SONY BMG CDs sold to consumers during the Class Period will be referred to herein as the “XCP Software,” and a SONY BMG CD or copy thereof containing XCP Software will be referred to herein as an “XCP CD.” Lists of the CDs containing MediaMax 3.0, MediaMax 5.0 and XCP are attached as Exhibit A to this Settlement Agreement. C. Six complaints — ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Sony BMG Music Entm’t, No. 05 CV 10637 (UA) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2005); ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Sony BMG Music Entm’t, No. 05 CV 10190 (BSJ) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2005); Klewan v. Arista Holdings Inc. d/b/a Sony BMG Music Entm’t, No. 05 CV 9609, consolidated as No. 05 CV 9575 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2005); ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Sony BMG Music, Inc., No. 05 CV 9575 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2005); ▇▇▇▇▇▇ v.
View Source
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. It was alleged by the US inter alia that the “Varietal testing Method” used by Japan to screen certain varieties of products being imported from the U.S. was inter alia violative of
View Source
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES. 1. The Beneficial Defendants and the Block Defendants (collectively the "Settling Defendants") and/or their Affiliates have been involved, together and separately, in offering or assisting lenders in offering Refund Anticipation Loans ("RALs") at some point from 1987 to the present. A RAL is a patented method by which tax customers, for a fee, can take out a loan that is secured by and expected to be repaid from the anticipated proceeds of their tax refunds.
View Source

Related to CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES

  • Claims A. To accept HHSC's reimbursement rates as payment in full for the services specified in this Contract to the persons for whom a payment is received, and to make no additional charge to the individual, any member of their family or to any other source for any supplementation for such services, unless specifically allowed by HHSC rules. B. To submit claims for payment in accordance with HHSC Claims Administrator billing guidelines applicable to the services under the Contract. C. That except as may be specifically authorized by HHSC in writing, if Contractor is required to use an HHSC-approved EVV system, Contractor must ensure that claims for services are supported by service delivery records that have been verified by the Contractor and fully documented in an HHSC-approved EVV system before being submitted for payment. D. That HHSC may make proper adjustments to the Contractor's payments from month to month to compensate for prior overpayments, underpayments or payments not made in accordance with the requirements of this Contract. The Contractor further agrees HHSC may withhold Contractor's payments, in whole or in part, because of differences from whatever cause until such differences are resolved. E. That the Contractor is responsible for payment of any valid audit exceptions found by HHSC, HHS or the Texas Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit ("AG-MFCU"). F. That in accordance with §403.0551, Texas Government Code, and unless otherwise prohibited by any other law, any payments due to the Contractor under this Contract will be first applied toward any debt or back taxes the Contractor owes the state of Texas. Payments will be so applied until such debts and back taxes are paid in full. G. That failure to upload EVV data elements or enter the EVV data elements completely, accurately, or in a timely manner, may result in claim denial.

  • Rights of the Parties Nothing expressed or implied in this Agreement is intended or will be construed to confer upon or give any Person other than the parties hereto any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement or any transaction contemplated hereby.

  • Claims of the Members The Members and former Members shall look solely to the Company’s assets for the return of their Capital Contributions, and if the assets of the Company remaining after payment of or due provision for all debts, liabilities and obligations of the Company are insufficient to return such Capital Contributions, the Members and former Members shall have no recourse against the Company or any other Member.

  • LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES 11.1. Should the Buyer breach the terms of payment stipulated in the Contract and corresponding additional agreements, the Buyer shall pay to the Seller liquidated damages of 0.05% of the amount outstanding per full calendar day of the payment delay. Should the Buyer fail to make 100% payment of Goods cost within 2 days of the time stipulated for payment, the Seller has the right, at its sole discretion, to terminate the Contract by written notice to the Buyer and without further liability upon the Seller. Should the Buyer breach the terms of signing of additional agreements both on provisional price and on final one, and the terms of fulfillment of final settlement, indicated in cl.8.3, the Seller reserves the right at its sole discretion, not to nominate the future Goods lots with further postponement of the delivery or decrease of the whole amount under the current Contract and / or to terminate the Contract without further liability upon the Seller. 11.2. The Parties acknowledge that the Seller has a legitimate interest in ensuring prompt and full loading of the stipulated quantity of Goods and that any failure of the Buyer to load the full quantity of Goods at the time specified in the Contract could cause the Seller significant loss and inconvenience. In particular, the Buyer understands that any such failure may cause the Seller to incur costs including, but not limited to, terminal storage charges, railway demurrage and / or infrastructure charges, and / or vessel demurrage in respect of other vessels. Accordingly, should the Buyer fail to load the full quantity of Goods at the time specified in the Contract: 11.2.1. the final price (Pr(F)) of the Goods shall be increased by 0,05% of the Contract value of the unlifted goods, per full calendar day of delay in lifting; and 11.2.2. the Seller shall have the right, at its sole discretion, to cancel the delivery of the unlifted Goods and / or to terminate the Contract without further liability upon the Seller. 11.2.3. Сompensates to the Seller losses suffered, including, but not limited to the following: charges of the Seller for storage of the Goods in the tanks of the terminal and in tanks of park of Ministry of Railways, charges of the Seller for using an infrastructure of the railways, other connected with this charges including demurrage claims of other vessels. 11.3. The Buyer shall exercise reasonable efforts to ensure that: 11.3.1. for vessels carrying persistent oil products as cargo, the vessel carries on board a certificate of insurance as described in the Civil Liability Convention for Oil Pollution Damage; and 11.3.2. the vessel has in place insurance cover for oil pollution no less in scope and amounts than available under the Rules of P&I Clubs entered into the International Group of P&I Clubs. 11.3.3. the vessel shall comply with the requirements of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and the relevant amendments to chapter XI of SOLAS (ISPS Code). 11.4. The Seller shall procure that the loading port/terminal/installation shall comply with the requirements of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and the relevant amendments to Chapter XI of SOLAS (ISPS Code).

  • Claims of Creditors The Contract Value and other benefits under this Contract are exempt from the claims of creditors to the extent permitted by law.