In some circumstances, you may sustain losses in excess of your initial margin funds. Placing contingent orders, such as "stop-loss" or "stop-limit" orders, will not necessarily achieve the desired results. Market conditions may make it impossible to execute such orders. You may be called upon at short notice to deposit additional margin funds. If the required funds are not provided within the prescribed time, your position may be liquidated.
You will remain liable for any resulting deficit in your account. You should therefore study and understand futures contracts and options before you trade and carefully consider whether such trading is suitable in the light of your own investment objectives, financial circumstances, tolerance to risks and investment experience.
You should also read any risk disclosure statement contained in any particular investment product you intend to purchase, subscribe or trade. If in doubt, please seek specific professional advice. The Bank may terminate your access to this Web Site at any time, with or without cause or notice. The Bank reserves the right in its discretion to change without prior warning or notice any information or material contained on this Web Site and the terms and conditions under which this Web Site is used.
All contents of this Web Site including but not limited to the texts, graphics, links and sounds are the copyright of Standard Chartered PLC and may not be copied, downloaded, distributed or published in any way without the prior written consent of Standard Chartered PLC. All other marks, names and logos used on this Web Site relating to companies within the Standard Chartered Bank Group or to their products or services are the intellectual property rights held by companies within the Standard Chartered Bank Group unless otherwise stated.
In relation to any information or materials which you submit to Standard Chartered Bank using this Web Site, you hereby grant to Standard Chartered Bank a worldwide royalty-free perpetual licence of the copyright and intellectual property rights in such information or materials for any purpose it deems including, without limitation, the copying, transaction, distribution and publication thereof, unless restricted by applicable laws.
Sharing information among the workforce of almost any organisation or business can be done through an outdoor or indoor notice board. Rest assured that whichever notice board you choose, it will help you to revolutionise the way you communicate in your workplace. Keeping employees updated is a major concern for some companies. This is something a notice board can help you achieve.
Companies can make use of various types of boards, each of which has its own unique functionalities. Most offices, for example, will opt for a cork notice board as its cork backing features allows users to pin up important updates and art work. Instead of using a traditional cork board, however, a company that wants a modern look might invest in a magnetic glass board.
When holding corporate meetings, many companies make the mistake of neglecting the use of notice boards. This can limit employees from contributing to a presentation, as office meetings are time-consuming and involve thought shower sessions. The use of mobile notice boards is just one way that employees can be helped to better execute their ideas. The convenience of these boards makes them ideal for conference rooms, as they are very easy to move around.
A mobile board can make it much easier for employees to contribute towards the meeting. So if the same evidence was provided in final proceedings surely the outcome would be either than the notice was effective, meaning the money is paid, or not, meaning that the whole lot would be repaid.
It might be that a decision on valuation may be of little use but could be useful in subsequent interim or final payment to help get the money back. Whilst it may be tempting for an adjudicator to follow the route you suggest, particularly if there was a substantial over-valuation on a tenuous delay claim, I consider that adjudicators must strictly apply the law concerning payment and pay less notices regardless of the merits — otherwise the process will be too uncertain.
Whilst applying the law strictly might result in a contractor being paid more than they would otherwise be entitled to if the merits were determined, it might also result in a contractor getting paid nothing when they are entitled to some payment e.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the appeal, and whether Bob has to conduct any more adjudications between these parties. Thanks for a very interesting article. Surely this is incorrect, and in fact the reason it could not be challenged in ISG v Seevic was actually only because the value had been decided in an earlier adjudication? Best regards Mat. Your email address will not be published. ISG v Seevic This was a case all about two adjudications between the same parties and with the same adjudicator.
Then, the payer must pay the sum stated as due in the default payment notice and cannot successfully refer to adjudication a dispute as to the value of the work properly executed at that date as that will amount to the same dispute. This suggests Edwards-Stuart J is clearly of the view that payers have never been able to refer the merits of a payment dispute to adjudication once a sum has been found to be due as a result of a lack of notices under the JCT design and build contract.
As such, while a payer might be able to issue a negative payment notice in respect of the following interim application, it would not be entitled to repayment of the sum due. We might see a rise in professional negligence claims against quantity surveyors who have failed to issue payment or pay less notices meaning that their client has to pay the sum claimed in a default payment notice.
In particular, if a client has to pay a sum well in excess of the value of the works executed and that results in the insolvency of the client, I could certainly anticipate insolvency practitioners pursuing quantity surveyors.
If a payee succeeded in obtaining the value set out in its payment notice and this amounted to as significant windfall, in theory it could decide not to submit any further payment notices meaning that the employer would not have the opportunity to submit a pay less notice or recover the sum paid. I will leave you with this question: What would have been the case if this had been the final payment, rather than an interim payment?
0コメント