Decisive Agreement Meaning

The term is often used in civil law. A decisive oath can be used in any type of civil competition. It can be used for possession or debt matters; and in personal and real actions. We must act decisively to solve this problem. A decisive oath is the oath of a party in a dispute that is used to decide the case because the adversary proposed to the party to return the decision of the case to the party because it was unable to provide sufficient evidence. A decisive oath is an oath on which the case is based, because one of the parties postpones or refers to the other to determine the cause. A decisive oath is also called a decisory oath. . Cleveland`s reputation for reliability was the determining factor in awarding the contract. The United Kingdom was instrumental in these negotiations.

Jukova Ltd sold a production property to Nikro Ltd, a limited company, through a sales contract of 15 December 2000 for Fmk1.35 million (approximately ?225,000). Prior to the sale, soil contamination was detected in the country for sale. According to a condition of the sales contract, Jukova was responsible for the removal of soil pollution, in accordance with the rehabilitation plan followed by an engineering office. The recovery plan estimated the cost of rehabilitation at 119,200 fmk (about 20,000 ?). Following the sale, the environmental authorities decided that the recovery plan was unacceptable and that it wanted further clarification. Subsequent clarifications revealed a high level of soil contamination and broader cleaning needs. Sanitation costs have been estimated at ?1.5 million. ? to ?4 million revised. In his complaint against Jukova before the Tampere Regional Court, Nikro claimed that Jukova was required to take measures to completely eliminate soil contamination (i.e. as requested by environmental authorities). Nikro argued that Jukova promised to clean the floor on the basis of the treaty.

Jukova replied that the parties had agreed that Jukova was responsible for the clean-up only to the extent provided for in the recovery plan. The District Court ruled in Nikro`s favour. Jukova appealed to the Turku Court of Appeal, but that court found that there was no reason to challenge the judgment of the first instance. . . .

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.