(a) The injured State has validly waived the claim

On 22 May 2000, the Department determined that the original application had been validly made.

Further discussion of these claims and whether they have been validly filed is set out in section VI of this report.

Can the transmitting State validly claim that it engages in effective exchange of information if it permits such de facto bank secrecy?

(b) The injured State is to be considered as having, by reason of its conduct, validly acquiesced in the lapse of the claim.

Consequently, a married woman who falls outside this category may validly conclude and execute a contract on the same basis as her husband.

The Supreme Court discussed whether the buyer's general terms of contracts could validly integrate the contract and, if not, which law should apply.

However, the provision is needed in view of the remaining uncertainties in a considerable number of countries as to whether contracts can validly be concluded by electronic means.

Under the applicable German law the arbitration agreement validly became part of the contract when the respondent did not object to its inclusion in the confirmation letter and started performance of the contract.

It was pointed out by other participants, however, that any decision of theCommission validly adopted should be respected by all the members, and the manner of vote should in no way affect cooperation by States.

Drafting comments were essentially concerned with refining the provision to make it unambiguously clear that arbitration agreements could be validly concluded by means other than in the form of paper based documents, for example, by electronic communications (A CN.9 508, para.

The Court of Appeal, confirming the first grade decision, applied articles 14 and 8 (3) CISG and held that the contract had not been validly concluded, since the declaration of acceptance conditional to the acceptance by the credit insurance diverged from the original proposal, thus constituting a counter offer.

The Court disagreed with the conclusions of the Supreme Court decision of 3 May 1985, arguing that, given that the Court had found that the collective agreement is not a sufficient legal basis on which the restructuring could be validly founded, the author's original post of Programme Officer could not have been abolished by the restructuring.