Cashman Expects New Deal By End Of Month - RealGM Wiretap Yankees general manager Brian Cashman believes that he will have a new contract in place by the time his current deal expires on Oct. 31. Cashman has been New York's general manager since 1998. "It'll get done between now and Oct. 31st
Panthers Cam Newton Jersey , I'm sure," Cashman said. "I can't promise, but I think that's what everybody expects. I know it's something that everybody has to follow. But that's not a pressing circumstance, as far as something I'm worried about right now." Cashman has no flights booked to meet with managing general partner Hal Steinbrenner in Tampa, but a new contract would not necessarily have to be negotiated face to face. "I'm sure it could get done over the phone, from my perspective," he said. "I don't want to speak for him." Marlins Hire Chuck Hernandez As Pitching Coach - RealGM Wiretap
The Marlins have hired Chuck Hernandez as their new pitching coach.
He will work under new manager Mike Redmond.
Hernandez spent the past two years as an assistant coach at the University of South Florida. He was pitching coach for the Tigers in 2006-08 and for Tampa Bay in 2004-05, and pitched in the minor leagues from 1979-83.
Epstein Acquiring Addison Russell No Brainer - RealGM Wiretap
Cubs president of baseball operations Theo Epstein said acquiring top shortstop prospect Addison Russell from the A's on Friday
Ted Ginn Jr Rush Jersey , for pitchers Jeff Samardzija and Jason Hammel, was a "no-brainer" and something the team had to do, despite its need for young pitching.
"We would have been very open to getting quality pitching back in this deal but there was no pitcher available who's even close to the caliber of player we feel Addison Russell is," Epstein explained on Saturday in a conference call with reporters.
Substance Is Essential In Notifications Of Claims Substance Is Essential In Notifications Of Claims August 26, 2013 | Author: Dirk Markhen | Posted in Legal
The primary role in the execution of the contract as “Engineer” (within the GCC) or “Principle Agent” (within the JBCC) necessitates regular decisions and judgements on the actions on location. This function can be often undervalued and will attract considerable liabilities.
Specialists in the construction and engineering industry are usually employed as the Engineer or Principle Agent. It is required of the specialist fulfilling this important function to be au fait not only with the terms of the contract, but also the execution thereof.
What are the ramifications of inadequate decision making by the Engineer or Principle Agent under these kinds of construction contracts? One particular example in which the courts talked about the yardstick with which the Engineer or Principle Agent is to be assessed is inside the case of Hawkins & Osborn (South) (Pty) Ltd vs Enviroserve Waste Management. The decision not only sets the current standard in this regard, but also appears to be a warning to Engineers and Principle Agents to act in a sensible manner when conducting themselves as the Employer’s spokesperson on location.
In cases like this, like in many other instances in the building and engineering sector
Kelvin Benjamin Rush Jersey , the Employer (Enviroserve Waste Management) concluded an oral agreement with the Engineer. The Engineer was appointed to watch over and manage particular contract functions.
The Employer then signed a written agreement with a Contractor to perform digging on a particular site. The written contract between the Employer as well as the Service provider included the General Conditions of Contract for Works of Civil Engineering Construction – 6th edition.
The contractor raised a dispute in terms of a “notification” of potential claims communicated to the Engineer within a letter. The Engineer did however not consider the letter as sufficient notification. The outcome of the Engineer’s decision would be a deadlock involving the Employer as well as the Contractor that had to be sorted out by an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator determined that the letter was definitely appropriate notice and that the builder was eligible to lay claim as informed therein.
Because of the Arbitrator’s decision, the Employer had to pay the Contractor’s claim, but then claimed damages for breach of agreement from the Engineer in the High Court. The Employer structured its claim on an allegation that the Engineer broke the contract by failing to construe the Contractor’s letter as an acceptable notice of the intent to claim payment for additional work as contemplated in clause 50(1) of the GCC.
The initial court established that no break of contract had happened as the Contractor’s letter didn’t constitute proper notice as contemplated in clause 50(1) within the GCC.
Nonetheless, it was held by the Supreme Court of Appeal that:
“…there were absolutely no reason why the notice contemplated in GCC 50(1) couldn’t be in the form of a letter provided the letter was so framed as to convey unequivocally towards the addressee that the author was invoking, or counting upon, the conditions of the contract which provided for the providing of notice. It could do so expressly or by implication. In the present case, the contents of the last paragraph of the Contractor’s letter were so closely associated with the substance of clause 50(1) that it satisfied that standard. The letter furnished information required by clause 50(1) (a) and (b).”
The Contractor’s letter did comply with the requirements of the contract for the reason that it included all the info that was necessary to represent a notice as needed by clause 50(1) of the GCC. The technical strategy adopted by the Engineer in working with the “notification” by the Contractor was n.
Konu Seçenekleri
