ne lie aucunement – English Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot      16 Results   6 Domains
  7 Hits ir.nexon.co.jp  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
3.1 Le présent engagement de conformité volontaire ne constitue pas une reconnaissance de la part d’Amgen que le prix de Vectibix DIN 02308509 est ou a été, à quelque moment que ce soit depuis la date de la première vente, excessif au sens de la Loi sur les brevets, et il ne lie aucunement les membres du Conseil au sens de la Loi sur les brevets.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca as primary domain
3.1 This Voluntary Compliance Undertaking (VCU) constitutes no admission by Amgen that the price of Vectibix DIN 02308509 is now, or was at any time since the date of first sale, excessive for purposes of the Patent Act, nor is this VCU binding upon any panel of the Board for the purposes of the Patent Act.
  3 Hits scc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Au cours de sa plaidoirie, l’avocat de l’appelante nous a cité un arrêt de la Cour d’appel d’Angleterre, rendu dans l’affaire Gray et al v. Barr[11] (Prudential Insurance Company Limited, mise-en cause), arrêt qui, bien qu’il ne lie aucunement cette Cour, me semble néanmoins tout à fait juste et persuasif devant les faits.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
In the course of the argument before us counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in England in Gray et al. v. Barr[11] (Prudential Insurance Company Limited, Third Party) which while in no way binding on this Court, nevertheless appears to me to be most apt and persuasive in the circumstances. In that case the appellant, who was covered by an insurance policy with the respondent indemnifying him for all sums which “he shall become legally liable to pay as damages in respect of bodily injuries to any person caused by accident”, had entered a farm house with a loaded shot gun and fired a shot into the ceiling with the intention of frightening the occupant who then grappled with him as a result of which the insured fell down stairs breaking the stock of the gun as he fell and involuntarily firing the second barrel which killed the occupant. The insured’s claim against his insurer was based on the contention that the occupant’s death was accidently caused and in the course of his reasons for judgment Lord Denning, M.R. posed the question in the following terms:
  3 Hits csc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Au cours de sa plaidoirie, l’avocat de l’appelante nous a cité un arrêt de la Cour d’appel d’Angleterre, rendu dans l’affaire Gray et al v. Barr[11] (Prudential Insurance Company Limited, mise-en cause), arrêt qui, bien qu’il ne lie aucunement cette Cour, me semble néanmoins tout à fait juste et persuasif devant les faits.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
In the course of the argument before us counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in England in Gray et al. v. Barr[11] (Prudential Insurance Company Limited, Third Party) which while in no way binding on this Court, nevertheless appears to me to be most apt and persuasive in the circumstances. In that case the appellant, who was covered by an insurance policy with the respondent indemnifying him for all sums which “he shall become legally liable to pay as damages in respect of bodily injuries to any person caused by accident”, had entered a farm house with a loaded shot gun and fired a shot into the ceiling with the intention of frightening the occupant who then grappled with him as a result of which the insured fell down stairs breaking the stock of the gun as he fell and involuntarily firing the second barrel which killed the occupant. The insured’s claim against his insurer was based on the contention that the occupant’s death was accidently caused and in the course of his reasons for judgment Lord Denning, M.R. posed the question in the following terms: