Examples of using Working example in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
The working example assumes that.
Presentation of the working example 140.
Referring to the working example, the direct funding requirement comprises the entire sum of 500.
Direct financing losses- working example;
If you need a working example or you need some inspiration in this area, take a look at Hubspot.
Summary of losses arising in the working example.
First, a look at the working example(place mouse over the link to see how it works- change of icon at the side).
Table 8. Summary of losses arising in the working example 79797979.
Working Example: takes a little warming and beam 4 series of 5'in different styles, gets other 5 minutes including.
Cv The Panel further notes that some of the funds havebeen claimed by the Ministry(the sum of 300 in the working example).
Interact with a working example of the online control panel to get a feel for how easy it is to monitor your smartphone.
The Panel must, first, consider the principal amount of the award made to the Ministry,the sum of 233 in the working example.
The funding entity, in the working example, has submitted a claim seeking compensation for the lost investment returns on the sum of 500.
The Panel therefore notes that compensation will be provided for thelosses sustained in connection with the loss of the building in the working example in the following manner.
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 full replacement cost of the building, 500,less appropriate adjustments for betterment(in the working example, the 267 depreciation adjustments)- that is, an award of 233;
To put it into a working example, a trader may choose to buy a range option of USD/EUR which at the time trades for $1.10.
The Panel has set out its findings as to the compensability of thosefinancing losses in section VII.E.6 above by reference to a working example in which the Funds Raised were expended on funding a loss of real property.
With reference to the working example, the Panel notes that the sum of 500, the full replacement cost, may be separated into the following elements.
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 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 notes that the full replacement cost of the building in the working example is not claimed by the Receiving Entity, and less than the full replacement cost was awarded by way of compensation for its loss.
The working example also assumes that the Receiving Entity indeed spent the sum of 500 in reconstructing the destroyed building, and that the Government received no additional income or revenue from the use of the new building.[xli].
The Panel finds itconvenient 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.
In the working example, the Government(through a funding entity, which was also part of the Government) raised the sum of 500, on a date after 2 August 1990, by liquidating assets from the FGF.
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.
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 recalls that the working example refers to the loss of a building, which was replaced at a cost of 500, and for which the Ministry was awarded the sum of 233, after adjustments for depreciation were made, as compensation for its loss.
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.
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”).