Примеры использования Working example на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Summary of losses arising in the working example.
The working example assumes that.
Direct financing losses- working example;
Here is a working example that we use on our own website.
Direct financing losses- working example.
Referring to the working example, the direct funding requirement comprises the entire sum of 500.
Table 8. Summary of losses arising in the working example 79797979.
In the code on you will find a working example of using API to search 3D-reviews by product barcode EAN.
Cv The Panel further notes that some of the funds have been claimed by the Ministry the sum of 300 in the working example.
Ends the narration working example that shows how to integrate these remarkable functions with Eclipse and Maven.
The Panel must, first, consider the principal amount of the award made to the Ministry, the sum of 233 in the working example.
The amounts selected for the working example are purely theoretical and do not relate to any claim filed.
An example of such voluntary betterment would be the installation of an upgraded air-conditioning system in the replacement building in the working example.
The Panel summarizes the working example in the following table which, for ease of reference, is also reprinted in the annex to this report.
The example of the healthy living centre initiative in England between 2000 and 2007 is a working example of such an approach that demonstrated positive outcomes Box 5.
The Panel finds that the various financing losses and losses of use of property, including loss of use of money, and how they should be compensated,are most easily explored by reference to the working example.
The full replacementcost of the building, 500, less appropriate adjustments for betterment(in the working example, the 267 depreciation adjustments)- that is, an award of 233;
The working example refers to a hypothetical building belonging to the Government, which was occupied by a Government Ministry(the“Ministry”) but destroyed during Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The Panel finds it convenient to set out its further findings by reference to a working example, which represents a hypothetical“F3” claim, and to which the reader will be referred throughout this and the following sections of this report.
Where the Receiving Entities are not in fact part of the Government, butanother legal entity(using the Kuwait Oil Company,(“KOC”), as an example in place of the Ministry in the working example), the situation is more problematic.
Referring to the working example, the direct funding requirement was the sum of 500, comprising 233(compensation awarded) and 267 the amount of depreciation adjusted by the claimant and the Panel, which is the funding gap.
The Panel now turns to consider the loss of use of the sum of 267, the amount of the funding gap in the working example that is, the involuntary betterment adjusted from the replacement cost of the building, or the uncompensated excess of the direct funding requirement.
Referring to the working example, the Ministry did in fact spend the sum of 500 on constructing the replacement building and so the lost investment returns on the sum of 500 are compensable, for the period described in paragraphs 152 to 158 below.
The Panel has addressed the elements of such losses that duplicate claims for interest in the preceding section, and by reason of the matters set out in that section,recommends compensation only in respect of those direct financing losses arising from funding the funding gap such as the sum of 267 in the working example.
For the loss of the building in the working example- by an award of compensation for its depreciated replacement cost, made to the Ministry, of the sum of 233. This award also compensates the loss of the Funds Raised for the replacement of the building.
The direct funding requirement, therefore,is the amount expended in funding the entire forced investment in reconstructing the destroyed building(the sum of 500 in the working example) and exceeds the amount that would be required to fund the amount of compensation of 233 awarded in the working example. .
The Panel has decided, with reference to the working example, that the outlay of the sum of 500 was itself a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and that the financing losses that arose as a consequence are themselves direct losses.
The direct funding requirement referred to in paragraph 1177 above therefore includes all those elements of the Funds Raised that would be required to fund the amounts of compensation awarded for relevant underlying losses[xlvii](the sum of 233 in the working example) and the funding gap the sum of 267 in the working example.
With reference to the working example, the Panel also finds that the Ministry, even if Iraq had not invaded and occupied Kuwait, would have had to replace the destroyed building at the end of its useful life, 14 years after it was destroyed the“normal replacement date”.
The Panel noted in the preceding section that the Ministry in the working example would receive a windfall gain if it were to retain the compensation awarded for the loss of the building, and interest awarded on that loss from the date upon which the Ministry was provided with funds from KIA.