Traduction de «acheteur principal » (Français → Anglais) :

(g)an indication of the maximum quantity of each component or group of components subject to quantitative limitation in food and/or appropriate information in clear and easily understandable terms enabling the purchaser to comply with this Regulation or other relevant Community law; where the same limit on quantity applies to a group of components used singly or in combination, the combined percentage may be given as a single figure; the limit on quantity shall be expressed either numerically or by the quantum satis principle.

an indication of the maximum quantity of each component or group of components subject to quantitative limitation in food and/or appropriate information in clear and easily understandable terms enabling the purchaser to comply with this Regulation or other relevant Community law; where the same limit on quantity applies to a group of components used singly or in combination, the combined percentage may be given as a single figure; the limit on quantity shall be expressed either numerically or by the quantum satis principle.

an indication of the maximum quantity of each component or group of components subject to quantitative limitation in food and/or appropriate information in clear and easily understandable terms enabling the purchaser to comply with this Regulation or other relevant Community law; where the same limit on quantity applies to a group of components used singly or in combination, the combined percentage may be given as a single figure; the limit on quantity shall be expressed either numerically or by the quantum satis principle.

(Return tabled) Question No. 206 Mr. Alex Atamanenko: With respect to Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program entitlement, the appeals process and exclusion from entitlement to other federal agricultural programs: (a) are appellants entitled to know what recommendations are made by the Western Amalgamated Appeals Sub-Committee and, if so, how is a copy of the recommendations obtained by the appellant; (b) are appellants entitled to know on what grounds the Intermediate Appeals Sub-Committee rejects recommendations of the Western Amalgamated Appeals Sub-Committee and, if so, how is a copy of the recommendations obtained by the appellant; (c) has the CAIS administration ever issued rejection letters to an appellant ...[+++]before or after soliciting the involvement of an appeals committee and, if so, how is a copy of the motion or other directive permitting this obtained by the appellant; (d) who is responsible for forwarding recommendations made by the Western Amalgamated Appeals Sub-Committee to the next level of appeal; (e) are there any legitimate grounds upon which the National CAIS Committee (NCC) administration is allowed to refuse an appellant the full extent of an appeal by neglecting to forward the recommendations of the Western Amalgamated Appeals Sub-Committee to the next level of appeal; (f) does the appeal process deal with appeals on a case by case basis or can the NCC administration short-circuit the appeals process based on a judgment that an appellant's complaint is just like the one that may have preceded it; (g) are there guidelines established that would give an appellant a reasonable expectation of the time it should take to address an appeal at all the various levels and, if so, what are the guidelines that govern a reasonable expectation; (h) is the appellant justified in expecting that the decisions made by appeals committees will be communicated to the appellant; (i) what are the circumstances under which it would be accepta ...

Consequently, the Court held that prepayments of the kind at issue in the main proceedings whereby lump sums are paid for goods indicated in general terms in a list which may be altered at any time by agreement between the buyer and the seller and from which the buyer may possibly select articles, on the basis of an agreement which he may unilaterally rescind at any time, thereupon recovering the unused balance of the prepayments, do not fall within the scope of that derogation.

The main barrier is the lack of interest from builders and buyers who perceive, incorrectly, sustainable construction as expensive and are suspicious of new technologies, doubting their long-term reliability and performance.