Examples of using Agrocomplect in English and their translations into French
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Agrocomplect did not provide copies of the relevant contracts.
Analysis and valuation With respect to the claim for the cost of evacuation by bus, Agrocomplect did not provide any proof of payment.
Agrocomplect did not state when the photographs were taken.
The Panel finds that the customs declaration forms submitted by Agrocomplect adequately demonstrate that Agrocomplect had imported some plant and equipment into Iraq.
Agrocomplect evacuated 94 persons by bus for a total cost of US$37,482.
For each category of equipment and machinery, Agrocomplect provided a more detailed list with a brief description of the relevant assets, quantities and claimed amounts in Iraqi dinars.
Agrocomplect evacuated 274 persons by air for a total cost of US$150,790.
Accordingly, even ifthe Panel were to accept the documents provided by Agrocomplect as sufficient evidence of its ownership of, and the value of, the campsite equipment, spare parts and supplies, the Panel finds that the items claimed had no commercial value on the date of the loss. The Panel recommends no compensation for campsite equipment.
Agrocomplect continued to work on the project until the middle of January 1991.
However, Agrocomplect provided no details with respect to this item.
Agrocomplect continued to work on the project until the middle of January 1991.
Agrocomplect was the main contractor on Contract No. 65, a US$95 million project.
Agrocomplect also provided moving vehicle permits for some of the equipment and machinery.
Agrocomplect did not demonstrate that these potential losses are the direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Agrocomplect did not provide a copy of Contract No. 65 relating to the Hilla-Diwaniya 4 Project or the annex relating to zone 9.
Agrocomplect provided a set of photographs depicting the project site and offices which had obviously been ransacked and looted.
Agrocomplect further provided an inventory list of 602 items of machinery, equipment and vehicles that were imported into Iraq between 1979 and 1990.
However, Agrocomplect failed to identify those items of imported plant and equipment which form the basis of its claim for loss of equipment and machinery.
Furthermore, Agrocomplect did not provide evidence of what the actual utilization rate was or how the unit price charged for the equipment was determined.
Agrocomplect did not provide evidence to substantiate that, but for Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait, the equipment and machinery would have been fully utilized.
Agrocomplect stated that its tangible property was either completely destroyed or stolen after Iraqi troops looted the project site, including the project office and campsite.2.
Agrocomplect submitted a list of 12 items of equipment and materials, their respective invoice dates(between 20 April 1989 and 14 October 1990) and the amount of the invoices.
Agrocomplect further stated that it was not paid for work completed on zone 9 of the project under an annex to the project contract, one third of which was completed by 2 August 1990.
Agrocomplect described its loss as moral damage to the company and its employees, however, Agrocomplect did not explain the precise nature or method of calculation of such moral damage.
However, Agrocomplect failed to provide adequate explanations to enable the Panel to cross-reference the inventory list of assets forming the basis of Agrocomplect's claim and the customs receipts provided.
Agrocomplect stated that four of these zones were completed and handed over to the Iraqi employer and that the remaining four zones were not handed over due to Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Agrocomplect referred to a penalty clause in its contracts with subcontractors which requires a party in breach to pay 10 per cent of the contract amount as compensation to the other party in the event of default.
Agrocomplect calculated its loss by multiplying the number of unexecuted“machine shifts”(number of items of each type of machinery multiplied by 137 working days) by the unit price for each machine shift.
On 13 January 1991, Agrocomplect formally notified the Iraqi administration that, as a result of the imposed economic blockade and the ensuing circumstances, Agrocomplect was not in a position to proceed with its work on the project.
Further, Agrocomplect provided no evidence or explanation regarding which subcontractors or suppliers made demands for payment, whether those subcontractors orsuppliers were paid and whether Agrocomplect was then released from the respective contract.

