Примеры использования View was expressed that paragraph на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The view was expressed that paragraph 2(a) served no purpose.
Conversely, the view was expressed that paragraph 1 was useful and should be included.
The view was expressed that paragraph(2) should be deleted.
In the course of that discussion, the view was expressed that paragraph 2 of draft article 54 exposed the controlling party to a potentially substantial liability.
A view was expressed that paragraph(5) dealt with two matters that might need to be differentiated.
As a matter of drafting, the view was expressed that paragraph 46 might need to be modified to parallel the wording of paragraph 45 with respect to the limitation of the sphere of application of the Model Law to"commercial law.
The view was expressed that paragraph(7) set forth the most important rule in draft article 18, i.e., that the debtor could be discharged by paying the rightful creditor.
In the context of that discussion, the view was expressed that paragraph 9.5 should make it clear that the right of retention would not necessarily imply that the goods would be retained on board the ship.
The view was expressed that paragraph(b) as drafted was too broad.
With respect to the words“capable of providing”, the view was expressed that paragraph(1) insufficiently reflected the need for any security procedure to be applied properly and successfully in order to give rise to a presumption of integrity of the data message.
The view was expressed that paragraph(3) was stating the obvious and should be deleted.
Another view was expressed that paragraph 17.1 should not at all address the shipper, the controlling party, or the consignee.
The view was expressed that paragraph 10.3, which gives a snapshot of the activities of the Office, should focus more on the logical framework.
The view was expressed that paragraph 2 was unnecessary, given the proviso contained in paragraph 1"For the purposes of the present draft articles.
The view was expressed that paragraph 19 should also provide the context and derivation of the objectives listed, and should discuss their relative importance.
The view was expressed that paragraph 4.38 omitted references to outputs emanating from the fourth special session of the General Assembly, devoted to disarmament.
The view was expressed that paragraph(5) and subparagraph(h) contained overlapping obligations and that, therefore, subparagraph(h) might be redundant.
The view was expressed that paragraph(3) might be read as introducing a verification procedure as a requirement for the validity of a digital signature.
The view was expressed that paragraph 2 involved the risk that any demand or unilateral imposition by the authority could lead to termination of the negotiations.
The view was expressed that paragraph(6) merely restated, in the context of cross-border recognition of electronic signatures and certificates, the principle of party autonomy expressed in draft article 5.
A view was expressed that paragraph 4 of article 53, which gives priority to court requests among possibly completing extradition obligations, should be deleted in the context of a strict application of complementarity.
The view was expressed that paragraph 3 was insufficiently clear on the effects of an objection by a State to the termination or suspension of a treaty and could create ambiguity as to the fate of the treaty.
A view was expressed that paragraph(3) was superfluous and potentially confusing in a State where a demand of payment or performance served by the creditor on the debtor had the effect of interrupting the limitation period.
The view was expressed that paragraph(3) should be deleted since it merely restated a widely accepted principle, under which certain usages would be made applicable to a contractual relationship in the absence of a contrary agreement.
The view was expressed that paragraph 54 should list additional"value-added services" performed by network operators, for example, authenticating and certificating data messages and providing security services for electronic transactions.
The view was expressed that paragraph 82, in particular its second sentence, seemed to advocate the privatization of infrastructure operators in order for a country to effectively reform its infrastructure sector.
While the view was expressed that paragraph(2) stated the obvious and could be deleted, the Working Group decided to retain it in order to usefully clarify a point that might not be clear in all legal systems.
The view was expressed that paragraph 2 was too broad and therefore inconsistent with the provision in article 10, paragraph 2, which limited the categories of persons to whom a successor State had the obligation to grant the right to opt for its nationality.
The view was expressed that paragraph(1) placed too much emphasis on the situation where the function of a certification authority was performed by an independent third party(often referred to as a“trusted third party”), which was not the only conceivable situation.
The view was expressed that paragraph(b) should be placed in square brackets, or that it could be deleted entirely in order to require all volume contracts derogating from the draft instrument to be individually negotiated.