In order to implement the amendment, the Council, in the absence of an agreement from Unison, had to agree directly on the amendment with individual workers. Workers were given the opportunity to accept the change until a fixed date, which would give them a cash incentive. The second option was dismissal and reinstatement in the offer of immediate re-employment under the new conditions. 90% of the workforce was taken into account under the new conditions. Of the others, the majority were dismissed and reinstated to the new uniform conditions of status. In the meantime, an agreement has been reached with the three unions on virtually all aspects of the new conditions. New recruits were recruited on the basis of the Single Status Agreement. These engagements were formulated in the clear words I quoted verbatim. Dyer is unequivocal about the moral imperative of protecting rhinos, even though the costs and challenges are enormous. The Court of Appeal reviewed the contractual agreements reached by the three groups of workers and concluded that, in any event, on the basis of the documents available to each category, there was a contractual right to pay for the progression under the terms of the uniform status agreement. The withholding of the annual increases in the salary stoppage resulted in a breach of contract.
The question, therefore, was whether the applicants had accepted the amendment by working without protest. These examples are automatically selected from different sources of online messages to reflect the current use of the word “unambiguous.” The opinions expressed in the examples do not reflect the views of Merriam-Webster or its publishers. Send us comments. Request non-executable consent of workers “In the first case, the question arises as to what the parties intended to use with the Indian agreements”: in the latter case, questions (i) “there was a proposal (or offer) made by one party [A] that could be accepted by the other [B]” and, if so, , (ii) “was this proposal that was adopted by [B] . . When determining the first of these questions…. The correct approach is to ask whether a person in B`s position (knowledge of the relevant circumstances that had B) would understand that A made a proposal to which he intended to be bound in the event of a clear adoption.” The reason for this part of Crest Nicholson`s decision was that the previous documents and agreements had clearly defined certain keywords used in the so-called letter of offer, so that the manner in which the words were used in the letter would have been interpreted as an obvious error by anyone who knew the history of the transaction. The conditions were therefore not interchangeable for the purposes of the letter and the replacement of one with the other could not have been contemplated by the author or understood by the reasonable recipient to make an acceptable offer. But Franklin wanted modern, clear evidence.
We are constantly receiving warnings from within, but the voices are not clear and emphatic enough to save us from ourselves.