The distinction that Suburban is trying to make by calling the information contained in AoM2 “clarification” and therefore not included in the laws is fragile. In the absence of a legal definition, we use the ordinary meaning of words. See In re Application of Taylor, 196 N.J. 162, 172-73 (2008). A “notice” contains a “written or printed advertisement”. See Black`s Law Dictionary 1087 (7th edition 1999). Given the clear meaning of the words used, the fact that CME characterized the information as “clarification” did not mean that it did not fall within the scope of the law if the creator considered that the document was important enough to require a written acknowledgment of receipt from all applicants. The legal language in point (e) covers a wide range of documents. It gives government agencies the discretion to include in the scope of mandatory items things that they deem important for the realization of a public project in consultation with the professionals concerned. Davis, 882 F. Supp., p. 1226 (cited United States v.
Jack Allen, No. 90-2093, 1990 WL 339488, *6 (W.D.Ark. 6 Nov. 1990)); see also United States v. Rohm and Haas Company, 790 F. Supp. 1255, 1264 (E.D.Pa.1992) (“The limitation period begins to run from the moment all impurities are removed.” “Eviction” is not limited to on-site abduction”); United States v. Petersen Sand and Gravel, Inc., 824 F.
Supp. 751, 755 (N.D.Ill.1991) (“the decision on the record serves as the EPA`s final action in the context of the corrective investigation and the feasibility study removal order process. the limitation period begins to run when the redress investigation and the measure to abolish the feasibility study by the EPO are completed by the publication of its minutes of decision”); United States v. R.A. Corbett Transport, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 81, 82 (E.D.Tex. 1990) (“All website activities conducted by the United States, including the corrective investigation, were removal measures within the meaning of CERCLA”). Chromatex, 832 F. Supp., p.
902. The Court concluded that all the work carried out after 30 October 1988 was clearly linked to the assessment of the work carried out on the site. The Chromatex Court held that, since the limitation periods had to be interpreted generously in favour of the Government, events after 30 October 1988 fell within the scope of the abolition. In addition, the Court recognized that the expiry of the limitation period was entirely under the control of the Government, as there was no indication that the Government was reluctant to complete the removal. In the case in front of the bar, it is relevant that the photos taken in Chromatex to verify the performance of the work were considered an event within the meaning of the definition of distance. In the present case, TAT was ordered to photograph the Prairie Metals site to determine whether the work attributed to James Bell had been completed. This course deals with equity and trusts, which, in its content, teaching and the nature of its development, highlights the main differences between Scottish and English law. We will examine the history of fairness and its relationship to the common law; the importance, creation and practical impact of trusts (explicit, implicit, resulting and constructive), with family disputes and business sagas playing a key role; non-profit and not-for-profit vehicles; the rights of beneficiaries; the appointment and responsibilities of trustees; Fiduciary relationships and fair remedies (in particular injunctions and freezing, search and seizure of orders). “The purpose [of the LPCL] is to ensure that offers are fair and free from fraud.” Entech Corp. v.
City of Newark, 351 N.J. Super. 440, 457 (Law Div. 2002). “The basic philosophy [of the LPCL] is to secure the economy and prevent extravagance, fraud and favouritism.” See Kotter v. Twp. by E. Brunswick, 160 N.J. Super. 462, 469 (App.
Div. 1978) (internal citations omitted). `The object of public tenders is not the protection of the individual interests of tenderers, but the promotion of the public interest in achieving the most economical result by inviting them to competition in which all tenderers have equal rights.` 426 Bloomfield Ave. Corp. v. City of Newark, 262 N.J. Super. 384, 387 (App. Div.
1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). To “protect the public good,” the LPCL should be “strictly enforced by the courts.” See Entech, loc. cit., 351 N.J. Super. to 457 (internal quotation marks omitted). This is a core course that introduces students to the basics of comparative law. The first part of the course focuses on the different methods of analyzing the differences and similarities between the legal rules between nations and cultures. It also introduces students to various efforts to map and explain legal diversity. The second half of the course includes a series of case studies to show how the comparative method can be applied in different areas of law and across nations and regions. Specialized projects are usually evaluated on the basis of a written thesis. Topics covered include insight into orientation, equality and diversity, health, safety and cybersecurity, and how to make the most of your time at university in terms of career and employability. A former Fulbright Scholar in Ukraine, Dr.
Brasher has taught at the University of Aberdeen and Tulane University. The GLAA provides that certain mandatory requirements for bidders, as set out in paragraph (e), required confirmations of “notices, revisions or additions.” Tender documents. See N.J.S.A. 40A:11–23.2. As noted above, the Statute does not define the term “communication, revisions or additions”. Suburban contends that recognition of GC2 was not required by law because it was neither an opinion, nor a review, nor an amendment, and that, therefore, materiality is the relevant criterion. Given that GC2 therefore concerned only contract 2, concludes Suburban, its non-recognition was irrelevant. In support of its argument, Suburban reiterates that if the information contained in AoM2 had been a notice, revision or supplement, Aberdeen would have been required to promote it under section 40A of N.S.S.A.: 11-23(c)(3). In addition, Suburban submits that the failure to include page 50b in the offer was a waiverable defect based on Meadowbrook Carting Co. v.
Borough of Island Heights, 138 N.J. 307, 314 (1994). Future has undoubtedly been registered throughout the tendering process, although it does not contain any evidence of Aberdeen through the current certificate. We agree with the trial court that this was a minor discrepancy or technical omission that was waived. In particular, AoM2 expressly stated: “This general clarification is hereby published to provide clarification and additional information to potential bidders.” Aberdeen did not limit the obligation to replace 50a with 50b to parties submitting bids for contract 2. As for Suburban`s assertion that GC2 does not need to be recognized because it has not been announced, this argument is also unfounded. N.J.S.A. 40A:11-23.2(e) does not limit “Notices, Revisions or Supplements” to documents advertised under paragraph 40A:11-23(d) of the N.J.S.A. In any event, N.J.S.A. 40A:11-23(d) provides for the nullity of an entire tendering process if the municipality has not properly tendered.
In its complaint, Suburban did not request the cancellation of the entire tendering process; Instead, it requested the award of contract 1. N.J.S.A. 40A:11-23(d) is not relevant to this appeal. Choose 15 additional credit points from the courses of your choice. Question 7: Since 3 30 yd. Recycling containers at the DPW shipyard appear to fall under Contract 2, confirmation of cargo transported annually is required. The cost of transporting them apparently needs to be factored into the marketing rate of entrepreneurs [sic], so precise figures are important. Given that Contract 2 does not charge prices for these containers more than twice a week, does it seem that this figure could be exaggerated? [sic] Would you consider a fee per container? Jim Ming Greenlee, U.S. Attorney`s Office, Oxford, MS, Lori Jonas, J. Michael Rockett, U.S.
Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, Jon M. Lipshultz, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Defense Section, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs. In this case, 50b, which was sent to all potential bidders, was part of the bid package. Aberdeen sought its approval and inclusion. To the extent that AoM2 was a “notice, revision [ or supplement”, it was included in the legal definition of a “document”. See N.J.S.A. 40A:11-23.2. Aberdeen made the inclusion of page 50b mandatory. This 7.5-credit course builds on knowledge gained in the legal system. It covers key elements of the English legal system.
These include sources of law, key institutions and roles, criminal and civil proceedings. It covers relevant current areas such as access to justice, the future of legal aid, the diversity of judges and the current and evolving nature of the different branches of the legal professions. Evaluation is carried out through research exercises.