Примеры использования Plaintiff's claim на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The court rejected the plaintiff's claim.
Consequently the plaintiff's claim for compensation of damages for prolonged proceedings was accepted.
The Commercial Court of Podgorica rejected the plaintiff's claim.
The court granted the plaintiff's claim for payment of the purchase price.
Thus, the Court ruled in favour of the respondent and rejected the plaintiff's claim.
On 29 June 2015 the court satisfy plaintiff's claim to the full extend.
Curaçao would then have to make available to the school board the requisite funds to cover the plaintiff's claim.
The defendant set off these costs against the plaintiff's claim articles 45(1)(b) and 74 CISG.
The plaintiff's claim was based on the assumption of inefficient and incomplete medical services provision.
On this basis the court rejected the plaintiff's claim for enforcement of the award.
Grounds of an action shall be actual andsubstantive circumstances on which the plaintiff's claim is based.
It dismissed the plaintiff's claim because the two-year deadline set out in CISG, article 39, paragraph 2.
The defendant demonstrated adherence to the requirement of equal treatment,so the Authority rejected plaintiff's claim.
In light of the above,the courts must ascertain whether the plaintiff's claim for interest is consideration sought for the use of money art.
While on first instance the Regional Court dismissed the action,the Higher Regional Court reversed the decision upholding the plaintiff's claim.
After the Regional Court had dismissed the plaintiff's claim for payment of the remaining purchase price, the Higher Regional Court rejected the plaintiff's appeal as well.
The court examined in the light of Swiss civillaw the question whether, as alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred.
On first instance, the Regional Court largely granted the plaintiff's claim accepting only one of the defendant's objections and dismissing all counterclaims.
As a reasonable excuse for the failure to give the required notice under article 44 CISG could not be found,the appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's claim.
The Court allowed the plaintiff's claim and ruled that the defendant was entitled to damages pursuant to articles 45(1)(b) and 74 CISG and therefore his debt had been offset.
October 2008 confirming decision no. 4.G.20.305/2007/20 of 8 April 2008 by the Heves County Court which rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages.
However, the plaintiff's claim was to be set off against the defendant's claim with the plaintiff receiving its original payment less the amount of damages owed to the defendant.
However, the court declined to determine the specific amount of damages, merely stating that,in any case, they would exceed the plaintiff's claim.
However, the court rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages, since according to the Code of Economic Procedure the plaintiff had not submitted enough evidence on this point.
Consequently, and as the question of amendment of the legislation comes within the sphere of the legislative power, the plaintiff's claim in this respect cannot be sustained.
The issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant should be dismissed before trial on the ground that there was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
The Supreme Court, upon assessing all particular circumstances of the case in the light of the criteria established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights,rejected the plaintiff's claim.
However, the court rejected the plaintiff's claim of penalties for late payment, because the contract only provided for penalties for late discharge of the prepayment obligation, not for late payment of the purchase price.
The circumstances of thecase were so shocking, and the totality of the evidence gathered by our lawyers was so undeniable that the judge ruled to satisfy the plaintiff's claim for moral damages in full, i.e.
With respect to the plaintiff's claim under domestic law that it had relied on defendant's promise so that the promise was binding as if it were a contract, the court concluded that this claim was not preempted by the Convention.