text:
Biografia

Figlio del pittore Gaetano Paloscia, è nato a Roma, ha trascorso l'infanzia a Francavilla a mare (Pescara) ed ha poi risieduto a Firenze dal 1945 fino al 2005, anno della sua scomparsa. A Firenze è arrivato al seguito dell'esercito alleato nel '45 e qui comincia a lavorare alla sede fiorentina de "La Patria. Quotidiano per l'esercito". Fra il '45 e il '46 collabora come disegnatore satirico, insieme con l'amico Silvano "Nano" Campeggi, a La Carrozzella. Settimanale Umoristico illustrato. Dalla primavera del 1946 dirige il foglio sportivo Il Calandrino sportivo, cui collabora nella doppia veste di giornalista e illustratore sotto gli pseudonimi di Maso il Pascià e di Cal.

Giunge alla redazione del quotidiano La Nazione nel 1947, dapprima come cronista, quindi come redattore giudiziario, inviato speciale, capo dei servizi esteri, infine caporedattore di Nazione Sera e responsabile delle pagine letterarie sulle quali ha scritto in qualità di critico d'arte.

Sulle pagine de La Nazione ha pubblicato servizi giornalistici da molte parti del mondo, recensioni di mostre, articoli di critica d'arte e interviste con molti protagonisti dell'arte moderna e contemporanea (da Chagall a Pietro Annigoni, da Henry Moore a Marino Marini, a Mino Maccari, a Pietro Cascella, a Mario Tozzi, ecc.). È stato Direttore della Gazzetta delle Arti.

È autore di diversi lavori monografici su artisti italiani e stranieri, di una pubblicazione sull'arte italiana dell'Ottocento (I Macchiaioli e l'Ottocento in Toscana, ed. Il Quadrato, 1985). Fra il 1991 e il 1999 ha pubblicato il libro Accadde in Toscana, dedicato alla storia della pittura Toscana dal 1915 ai nostri giorni, in 3 volumi. Il primo volume (ed. Trainer International, Milano, I Libri del Bargello), dedicato agli artisti toscani fra il 1915 e il 1940, ha vinto il Premio Castiglioncello; i volumi successivi sono stati pubblicati dalle edizioni Polistampa di Firenze. Suoi libri sono in catalogo presso la libreria on line AbeBooks. I suoi articoli sono reperibili negli archivi dei quotidiani La Nazione e Nazione Sera, delle riviste Arte In e La Gazzetta delle Arti, di cui è stato direttore responsabile negli anni'90.

Paloscia è stato segretario dell'Ordine Nazionale dei giornalisti italiani. Sue note biografiche sono reperibili nel Panorama biografico degli italiani d'oggi per le edizioni Curcio, nel Chi è del giornalismo italiano, negli annuari nazionali dei giornalisti, oltre che nei grandi cataloghi d'arte moderna (Bolaffi, Mondatori, ecc.).

Opere
 1985 -  I Macchiaioli e l'Ottocento in Toscana, ed. Il Quadrato.
 1991 -  Accadde in Toscana, vol. 1, ed. Trainer International, Milano, I Libri del Bargello.
 1992 - Intra et extra Lorenzo Taddei dipinti e sculture - presentazione del catalogo mostra personale al Parlamento Europeo di Strasburgo, Edizioni Luchi Monsummano Terme, Pistoia.
 1997 - Accadde in Toscana: L'arte visiva dal 1941 ai primi anni 70, vol. 2. Edizioni Polistampa, Firenze
 1999 -  Accadde in Toscana: L'arte visiva dai primi anni Settanta alle ore antelucane del terzo millennio, vol. 3. Edizioni Polistampa, Firenze.
 1999 -  La fantastica avventura di Ivano Cerrai. A cura di Polistampa, Firenze.
 1999 - Robert Chaplin Elisabeth Chaplin. La natura... prima ispiratrice. Edizioni Polistampa, Firenze.
 2000 - Robert Chaplin. Disegni. Edizioni Polistampa, Firenze.
 2000 - Raffaele De Grada, Tommaso Paloscia, Vittorio Sgarbi, Ferruccio Ulivi, Anita Valentini. Annigoni. Edizioni Mauro Pagliai, Firenze.
 2011 - Alinari, Facchini, Ghelli, Maranghi, Nesi, Possenti. A cura di Mauro Pagliai e Tommaso Paloscia. Edizioni Polistampa, Firenze.
 2006 - Quello che non so dimenticare. Edizioni Polistampa, Firenze.

Note

Bibliografia
 2003 - Lorella Pagnucco Salvemini, Cin cin Tommaso, Arte In, a.XVI, n. 87, ottobre-novembre 2003, pp. 66-68
 2005 - Giandomenico Semeraro, Le parole sull'arte, e non solo. Conversazioni con Tommaso Paloscia. Pacini Editore
 2009 - Tommaso Paloscia: L'immaginario grafico di Sisino. A cura di Vincenzo Crescente e Simonetta Paloscia. Edizioni Polistampa, Firenze.
 2009 - Vincenzo Crescente, Il segno grafico di Sisino. La Casa dei doganieri – Rivista di libri, lettere, arti. Montale e il tempo delle «Occasioni», anno II, n. 2-3 Firenze, maggio-dicembre 2009
 2010 - Vincenzo Crescente, "'Non potendo vivere di sol'aria'. Franchi, Montale, Saba". Tesi in Letteratura italiana moderna e contemporanea. Corso di Laurea in Lettere, A.A. 2008-2009, Relatore: Prof. Anna Nozzoli

Caricaturisti
Disegnatori italiani
Direttori di periodici italiani
Giornalisti sportivi italiani


text:
Q: Scheduling of I/O-bound operations in .NET If I'm on a thread which doesn't need to be responsive, and for which continued execution relies on the result of an I/O bound call (HttpClient request), is there any value in implementing the call asynchronously in .NET?
Will Windows know that I'm waiting on an I/O operation and refrain from scheduling the thread until data arrives?
I recall reading somewhere that it does, but I'm afraid I still have difficulty understanding how this works and when I can rely on it.

A: No, there is no value in using async there. As you suspect, Windows will know that the thread is waiting for IO and won't schedule the thread until the data arrives.
However, the idea of async is that you don't really need to create a new thread. The idea of async is that (I'm cutting a few corners here; there is better documentation available on the Internet) it tries to do something like you're doing here manually. So instead of you having to create a new thread, async does this for you. (It doesn't actually create a new thread, but you get the idea.)
If this needs to be high performance, I would not advise to do it the way you're implementing it now. Async would be much better for this. In your case, when you're doing 1000 requests, you would have 1000 threads, which is not a good idea. Async would accomplish this a lot smarter, and will give you better performance.
The basic advantage of using async (besides performance) is that it's like you're actually programming only on the UI thread. Previously, that would have locked up your application, but with async your application stays responsive. That's really the primary advantage of async.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


When is Nurses' Week in 2018?
The dates of Nurses' Week in 2018 run from Sunday, May 6th through Saturday, May 12th.
The term of Nurses' Week, sometimes referred to as National Nurses' Week, describes the week that is dedicated to acknowleding and honoring nurses for all of their hard work and dedication. The week always kicks off on National Nurses' Day, which is celebrated on May 6th, and ends on May 12th, which is Florence Nightingale's birthday. She is credited with being the creator of modern, professional nursing.
24 What Do You Think About Nurses' Week 2018?


text:
Q: To break html table row to next line to convert to pdf I want to convert an HTML table into pdf to take a print. But while converting into pdf table row goes beyond the page so I want to break the table row to next line. Is there any HTML table attribute or CSS to make that happen?

A: If long text makes your rows too wide, maybe the CSS word-wrap Attribute can help you.
For example: https://css-tricks.com/almanac/properties/w/word-break/


A recent study in California found that having a rooftop solar power system installed significantly increased the value of homes.
No surprise right? But the interesting thing was that the sale value of the homes with solar power increased by about the cost of installing the system – even though the original home owner had already made some of that money back through the electricity generated, and (since solar panels do have a limited life), the purchaser would arguably receive a better return on their money by buying a house without solar power and installing a new solar array.
What was also interesting was that a solar array did not increase the value of a new home as much as it did an existing home – which is again counter-intuitive, since in a new home the solar panels are presumably also new and have their whole 25-30 years of high performance ahead of them.


text:
Руби Роуз Бентон (; родилась 2 октября 1997 года, Лексингтон, США) — американская рэперша, певица, модель и автор песен.

Ранняя жизнь
Руби Роуз родилась и выросла в Лексингтоне, штат Кентукки, в семье эритрейской матери и американского отца. Её бабушка по отцовской линии имеет японское происхождение, а отец — представитель смешанной расы. Один год она жила в Женеве, Швейцария. Роуз переехала в Атланту, штат Джорджия, когда она была в младшем классе средней школы. Руби изучала политику в Университете штата Джорджия.

Карьера
Сначала Роуз прославилась благодаря участию в клипе хип-хоп трио Migos на сингл «Bad and Boujee». Примерно в это же время она начала регулярно появляться на стримах Twitch DJ Akademiks. Роуз начала выпускать свою музыку в 2019 году, она добилась успеха, выпустив сингл «Big Mouth». Руби сыграла эпизодическую роль в видеоклипе американской рэперши Карди Би на её сингл «WAP», который был выпущен 7 августа 2020 года. В 2019 году Роуз подписала контракт с Крисом Тернером (A&R) и музыкальным лейблом LA Reid Hitco Entertainment.

25 декабря 2020 года Руби выпустила дебютный микстейп For the Streets. Он содержит гостевые участия от американского рэпера Фьючера и канадского певца PartyNextDoor.

Личная жизнь
В 2018 начала встречаться с американским рэпером и моделью Playboi Carti, однако в том же году они расстались.

Дискография
Микстейпы
 For the Streets (2020)

Примечания

Ссылки

Рэперы США XXI века
Рэперы США
Модели США
Певцы и певицы США

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Журавлинка () — село на Украине, находится в Народичском районе Житомирской области. Расположено на реке Каменка.

Код КОАТУУ — 1823755105. Почтовый индекс — 11434. Телефонный код — 4140. Занимает площадь 0,4 км².

Адрес местного совета
11400, Житомирская обл., Народичский р-н, пгт Народичи, ул. Ленина, 175.

Примечания

Ссылки
 Журавлинка на сайте Верховной рады Украины

Населённые пункты Народичского района


This topic provides an overview of the igOlapXmlaDataSource™ component and its main features.
This group of topics explain the multidimensional (OLAP) data source components of the Ignite UI® suite.
The following table summarizes the main features of the igOlapXmlaDataSource component. Additional details on each feature are available after the table.
Given a URL of an Internet Information Services (IIS) server hosting the msmdpump.dll Internet Server Application Programming Interface (ISAPI) extension, the igOlapXmlaDataSource establishes connection to the server.
The igOlapXmlaDataSource supports basic (username and password) authentication.
When initialized, the igOlapXmlaDataSource downloads the OLAP metadata from the server – available databases, cubes, measure groups, dimensions, etc.
After hierarchies are assigned as rows/columns, igOlapXmlaDataSource generates one or more result axes containing tuples of members from the corresponding hierarchies. If measures, too, have been chosen, igOlapXmlaDataSource generates a two-dimensional array of value cell objects.
The igOlapXmlaDataSource component can feed data to those data visualization controls of Ignite UI that are capable of presenting OLAP data.
The igOlapXmlaDataSource component is designed to communicate with an MS SQL Server Analysis Services (SSAS) server that has HTTP access through msmdpump.dll. In order to connect to the server, you need to specify only the URL of the server.
The igOlapXmlaDataSource component exposes options for configuring authentication. For basic authentication, you can either set the credentials in code or let the user enter them from a browser popup. For the configuration requirements and limitations, refer to the related topics.
Upon initialization, the igOlapXmlaDataSource component loads all the available metadata from the server. You can limit the downloaded metadata to a relevant pre-configured set by specifying database, cube, and measure group.
The igOlapXmlaDataSource component represents an abstraction of a pivot table. It has rows, columns, filters, and measures collections to which data source hierarchies and measures can be added. After adding items to these collections, igOlapXmlaDataSource downloads the needed data and writes it in an $ig.OlapResult object, which can be obtained through the result property. This object has row and column axes containing the hierarchies' members and an array of data cell objects containing the measure values according to the present measures.
The igOlapXmlaDataSource component can feed data to those data visualization controls of Ignite UI that are capable of presenting OLAP data. The controls supported at this writing are igPivotDataSelector, igPivotGrid, and igPivotView.
This topic explains how to configure IIS hosting HTTP data provider (msmdpump.dll) for SQL Server Analysis Services (SSAS), for cross-domain access (both authenticated and non-authenticated access). These settings are required for certain usage scenarios of the igOlapXmlaDataSource component.
This topic provides a workaround for configuring IIS for cross-domain authenticated access for the Mozilla® Firefox® browser. (At this writing, due to a bug, the current version of Firefox (17.0.1) does not support the standard IIS configuration (provided here)).
The topics in this group cover adding the igOlapXmlaDataSource component to an HTML page and an ASP.NET MVC View.
This topic provides conceptual information about the igPivotView control including its main features, minimum requirements, and user functionality.


text:
OpinionCase details
SCC Alameda Point LLC v. City of Alameda
Stanford Hosp. & Clinics, Nonprofit Corp. v. Humana, Inc.
Even if his testimony was probative of Stanford's subjective intent, there is no indication that Stanford…
Redzone Wireless, LLC v. NETGEAR, Inc.
This evidence belies Redzone's contention that the parties indisputably understood "as is" as referring only…
6 Citing Cases
Full title:SCC ALAMEDA POINT LLC, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ALAMEDA, Defendant.
Court:United States District Court, N.D. California.
Date published: Sep 14, 2012
897 F. Supp. 2d 886 (N.D. Cal. 2012)
United States District Court, N.D. California.
No. C 10–05178 CRB.
SCC ALAMEDA POINT LLC, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ALAMEDA, Defendant.
Daniel Stephen Miller, Brian Aaron Procel, James Michael Miller, Louis R. Miller, Miller Barondess, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff. David Blake Newdorf, Vicki Francine Van Fleet, Newdorf Legal, Alan Henderson Murphy, Geoffrey Laurence Robinson, Perkins Coie LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.
CHARLES R. BREYER
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.
This case arises out of ongoing efforts by the City of Alameda ("the City") to develop a major residential, commercial, and retail project at the former Alameda Naval Air Station ("Alameda Point"). The City entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ("ENA") with developer SCC Alameda Point ("SCC Alameda") in 2007 under which both sides were obligated to negotiate in good faith toward approval of an entitlement application; the entitlements would give SCC Alameda the right to develop Alameda Point. After SCC Alameda spent over $17 million working on the project with the ultimate goal of obtaining entitlements, the City Council voted to reject SCC Alameda's entitlement application.
SCC Alameda filed suit claiming, among other things, that Defendants City of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission (collectively, "the City") breached the ENA. The City's breach allegedly caused SCC Alameda to suffer damages amounting to over $117 million ($17 million in reliance damages and over $100 million in lost profits). The City claims the damages are limited to the return of a $1 million deposit. The Court granted the City's motion to dismiss the claim for lost profits damages, as lost profits are not available for breach of an agreement to negotiate under California law. Dkt. 113.
The availability of reliance damages was the subject of a motion to dismiss by the City, and this Court preliminarily found that the damages clause in the ENA was potentially ambiguous, and allowed the parties to conduct discovery regarding the meaning of the damages clause. Dkt. 93 at 4 ("[T]he parties may conduct discovery only for the purpose of demonstrating their intent as to whether the damage waiver clause would preclude recovery of reliance damages."). After completing such discovery, the City moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the contract allows for reliance damages other than as specifically laid out in the contract. Since the extrinsic evidence demonstrates no meeting of the minds on the issue of general reliance damages and does not support such a reading of the contract, the Court GRANTS the motion for partial summary judgment.
The parties disagree over the meaning of the Remedies clause of the ENA. The City argues the ENA contains a damage waiver clause precluding recovery of general money damages, and thus, precludes SCC Alameda's claim for general reliance damages. SCC Alameda, unsurprisingly, disagrees. The Remedies Clause of the ENA states:
7.4. Remedies. [N]either Alameda nor Developer shall be entitled to damages or monetary relief other than as set forth in this Section 7.4. Permitted remedies shall include (i) mandatory or injunctive relief, (ii) writ of mandate, (iii) termination of this Agreement, or (iv) a contract Claim ... to recover money due to Alameda or Developer as a payment of Pre–Development Costs or reimbursement of excess Pre–Development Cost deposits under Section 6 of this Agreement; provided, however, neither Alameda nor Developer shall be liable, regardless of whether the Claim is based in contract or tort, for any special, indirect or consequential damages.
ENA § 7.4. The City argues that the clause precludes recovery of all but a specific subset of reliance damages; SCC Alameda argues that the clause allows for recovery of broad and comprehensive reliance damages. The Court found in a prior discovery order that the clause was arguably facially ambiguous. The Court allowed discovery on this issue. The parties have now conducted discovery regarding the clause, and present evidence as to the drafting history to help the Court discern the meaning of the clause.
Section 6.2 of the ENA defines Pre–Development Costs as "third-party consultant and legal costs and expenses and Alameda staff time, as such staff time shall be reflected in the Annual Budget (as defined below), related to the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement and the Transaction Documents ... incurred from and after the Effective Date ...." (emphasis added).
The Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ("ENA") was heavily negotiated by both sides. The initial draft was produced by Alameda outside counsel JoAnne Dunec based on a "form" used in another transaction. Newdorf Decl. (dkt. 124) Ex. B ("Dunec Depo." 38:11–21); Ex. F ("Potter Depo." 40:18–21). The document went through "dozens" of drafts over two months before it was signed by both sides. Newdorf Decl. Ex. A ("Brandt Depo." 43:24–44:1). This included the initial draft circulated on May 15, 2007 (Newdorf Decl. Ex. 5), and revisions circulated May 22, 2007 ( Id. Ex. 22), June 4, 2007 ( Id. Ex. 8); June 11, 2007 ( Id. Ex. 6), June 16, 2007 ( Id. Ex. 16), June 21, 2007 ( Id. Ex. 21), July 3, 2007 ( Id. Ex. 9.) and July 10, 2007 ( Id. Ex. 24). Both sides made changes in the draft language, with the drafts going back and forth between them. Brandt Depo. 38:12–18; Newdorf Decl. Ex. C ("Freilich Depo." 57:11–13); Potter Depo. 8:19–21. In addition, the parties met on a regular basis (weekly at times) to discuss changes in the draft versions of the ENA. Brandt Depo. 26:5–14; Potter Depo. 10:25–11:12. Each side was represented by both in-house and outside counsel. Freilich Depo. 26:9–12; Newdorf Decl. Ex. E. ("Myers Depo." 6:1–6). The negotiations took approximately two months. Brandt Depo. 25:14–17; Freilich Depo. 15:8–9. The final ENA was signed and dated July 18, 2007, after being approved by the Alameda City Council. Newdorf Decl. Ex. 1.
Dunec prepared the first ENA draft on behalf of the City. Miller Decl. at Ex. A ("Brandt Depo.") at 23:5–9. The initial draft at Section 7.5 discussed remedies:
In any action at law or equity or other legal or administrative proceeding to remedy an event of default of this Agreement or otherwise enforce this Agreement, or that otherwise may arise out of this Agreement, the sole and unique remedies shall consist of (a) mandatory or injunctive relief, (b) writ of mandate, or (c) a contract Claim (as defined below) to recover money due to Alameda or Developer as a payment of Pre-development Costs or reimbursement of excess Pre-development Cost deposits under Section 5 of this Agreement. Neither Alameda nor Developer shall be liable, regardless of whether the Claim is based in contract or tort, for any special, indirect or consequential damages.
Newdorf Decl. Ex. 5 § 7.5 (emphasis added). Two days later, the parties met for a face-to-face discussion. In her deposition, Freilich stated she told the City that SCC Alameda should be able to recover reliance damages upon a breach by the City. Miller Decl. Ex. D ("Freilich Depo.") at 13:23–14:25. The contemporaneous notes taken by Dunec (the City's outside counsel) at the first meeting, stated in part:
§ 7.5—Remedies
—costs incurred up until termination
§ 7.2—If Alameda defaults—recovery of costs by SunCal [SCC Alameda]
DB [David Brandt]—won't agree
Newdorf Decl. Ex. 17 at 4. Brandt testified at his deposition regarding the early discussion of out-of-pocket cost recovery by SCC Alameda:
Q. And then under 7.2, which is default to Alameda in the draft, there's a note [in Exhibit 17], "If Alameda defaults—recovery of costs by SunCal."
Do you recall who said that at the meeting?
A. That was either going to be Amy [Freilich of SunCal] or Charlie [Thornton, outside counsel for SunCal].
Q. They were referring to recovery of costs other than the true-up?
A. Yes. Their out-of-pocket costs which they had talked about being in the tens of millions of dollars.
Q. The next line is, "DB-won't agree." Did you say something along those lines?
A. Yes. I refused to agree to that.
Brandt Depo. 54:11–22. The parties exchanged numerous additional drafts after the first draft.
The City agreed to a term proposed by SCC Alameda in a May 22, 2007 draft that SCC Alameda would be entitled to a return of the $1 million deposit if the City defaulted. Newdorf Decl. Ex. 22, § 7.2; Brandt Depo. 53:20–54:5.
Approximately twenty days after negotiations commenced, SCC Alameda proposed a "break-up fee," which would have allowed SCC Alameda to recover 110% of its pre-development costs in the event that the City replaced SCC Alameda with another developer after the ENA expired. Miller Decl. Ex. A ("Brandt Depo.") at 33:4–34:8, 85:8–19; see also id. Ex. F ("Little Depo.") at 36:8–10; id. Ex. C ("Dunec Depo.") at 46:8–24. Pursuant to the proposed Section 6.4:
6.4. Break–Up Fee. In the event that prior to two (2) years after the expiration of the Term, as may be extended as provided herein, Alameda or any constituent thereof solicits, markets, or negotiates with any other person or entity regarding the development of control of the Project Site (or any portion thereof) or solicits or entertains bids or proposals for the disposition of the Project Site, then SunCal shall be entitled, at its election, to (i) the return of the Initial Payment plus any interest accrued thereto and (ii) a break-up fee in an amount equal to one hundred ten percent (110%) of the sum of the Predevelopment Costs and any payments made by SunCal to Alameda pursuant to Section 6.3. Such payment shall be made [designate time of payment and payor.]
Newdorf Decl. Ex. 8 § 6.4 (emphasis added).
The City opposed the break-up fee provision, viewing it as a "tax" that would discourage a future developer from taking on the Project in the event that the City and SCC Alameda failed to reach a deal. Miller Decl. Ex. A ("Brandt Depo.") at 34:13–35:1, 43:1–9, 59:21–60:18. SCC Alameda agreed to delete the "break-up fee" provision from the subsequent June 16, 2007 draft. Id. at 38:17–39:2, 44:12–25; Newdorf Decl. Ex. 16.
David Brandt testified about the City's opposition to the Break–Up Fee:
Q. Under part III (of Ex. 14), "Other Issues," there's a section d, "Break–Up Fee Deletion."
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have an understanding of what that refers to?
A. Yes. It refers to the city's position that we wanted that provision deleted from the draft.
Q. There was pushback from SunCal on that?
Q. Do you recall how that was resolved?
A. They finally agreed to delete it. (Brandt 38:17–39:2)
MR. NEWDORF: Q. So how would you characterize the importance of the city's position on deletion of the break-up fee?
[Objection omitted]
THE WITNESS: It was of critical importance. (Brandt Depo. 43:1–5)
After the Break–Up Fee was removed, neither party added draft contract language that explicitly referred to the recovery of SCC Alameda's general out-of-pocket costs.
In a later draft, dated June 21, 2007, the City proposed adding language that would further limit SCC Alameda's remedies. Specifically, it sought to prevent SCC Alameda from placing a lien on the Project Site: "[i]n no event shall Developer have any right (and Developer waives any such right) to file a lien, encumbrance or lis pendens against the Project Site or to file an action for specific performance relating to the transfer of all or any portion of the Project Site." Newdorf Decl. Ex. 21. SCC Alameda rejected the City's proposal four days later, striking the limitation from the following draft. Miller Decl. Ex. K; id. Ex. D ("Freilich Depo.") at 56:11–21. Freilich stated in her deposition that, "[t]his is part of the continuing discussion about th[ese] remedies that just never really stopped throughout the process." Freilich Depo. at 56:19–21.
On July 3, 2007, two weeks before the agreement was finalized and executed, SCC Alameda circulated a draft that included revisions of the "Remedies" provision. This was the first substantive change related to the Remedies section since the initial form draft. The changes (adopted in substance in the final version of the agreement) are shown in red-line below:
7.4 7.5 Remedies. In any action at law or equity or other legal or administrative proceeding to remedy an a Developer Event of Default or an Alameda Event of Default of this Agreement or otherwise enforce this Agreement, or that otherwise may arise out of this Agreement, the sole and unique remediesshall consist of neither Alameda nor Developer shall be entitled to damages or monetary relief other than as set forth in this Section. Permitted remedies shall include (i) mandatory or injunctive relief, (ii) writ of mandate, or (iii (iii) termination of this Agreement or (iv) a contract Claim (as defined Section 15.5 below) to recover money due to Alameda or Developer as a payment of Pre-development Costs or reimbursement of excess Pre-development Cost deposits under Section 6 of this Agreement . Neither ; provided, however that neither Alameda nor Developer shall be liable, regardless of whether the Claim is based in contract or tort, for any special, indirect or consequential damages.
Newdorf Decl. Ex. 9. § 7.4
The change was accepted in the next draft. See July 3, 2007 draft ENA attached to Miller Decl. Ex. L. The parties had different recollections of the purpose and meaning of this revision. SCC Alameda witnesses now say they would not have entered into the ENA had the City rejected this proposed change. Miller Decl. Ex. H ("Myers Depo.") at 43:3–9; id. Ex. B ("Cook Depo.") at 61:8–13. Based on the City's acceptance of the proposed language, SCC Alameda witnesses testified in deposition that they understood that out-of-pocket costs were now recoverable. Myers Depo. at 41:7–25; Freilich Depo. at 81:2–12.
Most of the City's witnesses could not recall any discussions relating to this change to Section 7.4 or who made the change. Miller Decl. at Ex. G ("Mooney Depo.") at 29:12–16, 30:20–25; Dunec Depo. at 30:9–13, 39:12–19, 50:4–51:8, 54:3–25; Little Depo. at 41:4–44:4. David Brandt apparently misremembered the chronology and testified that he—not SCC Alameda—requested this change:
Q: Were these changes proposed by you in Exhibit 9?
A: Yes.
Q: I see the strikeout of "sole and unique remedies." And then the next sentence starts "permitted remedies shall include." How did this make it more clear that SunCal could not recover its costs?
A: I don't recall why Joanne [Dunec] actually used the words that ended up in that particular sentence. My instructions to her were I wanted all the terms to relate back to defined terms.
Q: So you don't recall why that language was used, that switch, the deletion of "sole and unique remedies" and the addition of "permitted remedies"?
A: No, I can't say that I do.
Miller Decl. Ex. A (Brandt Depo.) at 72:2–19.)
Brandt did further explain the City's position as to out of pocket costs.
Q. Did you express to SunCal either in a phone conference or in a joint face-to-face session that the provisions proposed in the remedies section were to more strongly support the previously expressed position of the city that their [sic] would be a waiver of damages and that the city's financial risk was limited to potentially returning the $1 million initial payment and any remaining funds in the predevelopment cost account
[Objection omitted.]
THE WITNESS: I expressed those issues directly to SunCal, particularly to Amy Freilich, repeatedly. (Brandt Depo. 64:15–65:2.)
Q. At that point SunCal said we just don't agree on this clause, the parties weren't on the same page with respect to whether SunCal could get its costs back in the event of an Alameda default, right?
THE WITNESS: No. I believe they conceded relatively quickly. We told them we would walk away from the discussions if they didn't drop that position.
MR. MILLER: Q. Who at SunCal conceded?
A. Well, it never showed up in a draft, so I think essentially it was a group concession. (Brandt Depo. 67:9–19.)
In discussing the City's potential monetary liability arising from the ENA, the City's negotiators stated in deposition that they made clear to SCC Alameda that the return of the $1 million deposit was SCC's recourse in the event of default. Leslie Little, one of the members of the City's negotiating team, testified:
Q. And you recall SunCal not seeing eye to eye with the City and saying we want to be able to recover our costs, correct?
A. I recall SunCal acknowledging the City's position more than once. I recall SunCal asking for an exception to that more than once.
(Little Depo. 29:19–24.)
Q. And I understand your position and your belief as far as what the ENA means, but do you recall any specific discussion with SunCal where they agreed on the issue?
A. I believe I do remember discussions where they agreed to those terms, that's correct.
Q. And who from SunCal?
A. I would say it was specifically Amy Freilich and Pat Keliher.
Q. And what did they say about the issue?
A. That they accepted those terms from us.
Q. And when you say "those terms," which terms are you referring to?
A. The limitations on their ability to recover pre-development costs most specifically.
Little Depo. 32:12–33:5.
Deponents from both sides confirmed that no one from SCC Alameda ever explicitly, and in those words, agreed that all out-of-pocket costs would be unavailable in the event of a breach. Miller Decl. Ex. F ("Little Depo.") at 31:13–20; Brandt Depo. at 67:9–22, 69:11–22, 71:4–17; Dunec Depo. at 33:17–34:18; Thornton Depo. at 26:1–9. There was also not testimony that SCC Alameda explicitly told the City the revision to the Remedies Section was intended to allow such costs and no testimony that the City ever acceded to such a position in discussions with SCC Alameda.
The parties executed the Final ENA on July 18, 2007. Newdorf Decl. Ex. 1 at 1.
Whether language in a contract is ambiguous is a question of law to be determined by the court. Producers Dairy Delivery Co. v. Sentry Ins. Co., 41 Cal.3d 903, 904, 226 Cal.Rptr. 558, 718 P.2d 920 (1986). Interpretation of an unambiguous contract is also a question of law. Abifadel v. Cigna Ins. Co., 8 Cal.App.4th 145, 159, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 (1992) ("The interpretation of a contract is a question of law when the contract terms are unambiguous.").
"The threshold issue of whether to admit the extrinsic evidence—that is, whether the contract is reasonably susceptible to the interpretation urged—is a question of law...." Abers v. Rounsavell, 189 Cal.App.4th 348, 357, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 860 (2010). "[T]he first question to be decided is whether the language is 'reasonably susceptible' to the interpretation urged by the party. If it is not, the case is over." Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 384, 393, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 668, 139 P.3d 56 (2006)(quoting Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.App.4th 839, 847, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 227 (1995)).
If the Court does determine there is an ambiguity in the contract as written, California courts engage in a two-step process to resolve ambiguities in a written agreement:
First, the court provisionally receives (without actually admitting) all credible evidence concerning the parties' intentions to determine "ambiguity," i.e., whether the language is "reasonably susceptible" to the interpretation urged by a party. If in light of the extrinsic evidence the court decides the language is "reasonably susceptible" to the interpretation urged, the extrinsic evidence is then admitted to aid in the second step—interpreting the contract.
WYDA Associates v. Merner, 42 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1710, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 323 (1996); accord Centigram Argentina, S.A. v. Centigram Inc., 60 F.Supp.2d 1003, 1007 (N.D.Cal.1999). If the Court concludes, after completing this process, that the parties' competing interpretations are equally plausible, it cannot grant summary judgment. WYDA Associates, 42 Cal.App.4th at 1710, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 323 ("[w]hen two equally plausible interpretations of the language of a contract may be made ... parol evidence is admissible to aid in interpreting the agreement, thereby presenting a question of fact which precludes summary judgment if the evidence is contradictory"); Centigram, 60 F.Supp.2d at 1007 ("[i]nterpretation of the contract is an issue of law if ... the contract is ambiguous but no parol evidence is admitted or the parol evidence is not in conflict" (emphasis added)).
During the first stage, lower courts provisionally receive all credible extrinsic evidence to ensure that both sides are advancing a reasonable interpretation of the agreement. Tahoe Nat'l Bank v. Phillips, 4 Cal.3d 11, 22, 92 Cal.Rptr. 704, 480 P.2d 320 (1971) ("[r]ecent decisions make clear that, in most cases, extrinsic evidence must be admitted provisionally in order that the court may determine if that evidence is relevant to establish an interpretation of the instrument to which it is reasonably susceptible"). If, after such provisional consideration, the court concludes that the contract is fairly susceptible to competing interpretations, it will admit the evidence and undertake the task of resolving the ambiguity. Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1015 (9th Cir.2012) ("[i]f the court decides, after consideration of this evidence, that the language of a contract, in the light of all the circumstances, is fairly susceptible of either one of the two interpretations contended for, extrinsic evidence relevant to prove either of such meanings is admissible").
However, if, after considering all credible extrinsic evidence, the court concludes that the contract is not "reasonably susceptible" to the construction supported by that evidence, the inquiry ends there. See Barris Indus., Inc. v. Worldvision Enters., Inc., 875 F.2d 1446, 1450 (9th Cir.1989).
The parties first argue that the contract is only reasonably susceptible to their respective interpretations of its plain language. The parties then argue that the drafting history and deposition testimony surrounding the remedies language in the contract support their respective interpretations. Thus, the Court will examine the issues in turn in the framework described above.
A. Reasonable Susceptibility of Recovering Reliance Damages
The Court has already made a preliminary statement on this issue in the Order allowing further discovery, where the Court found the Remedies language was potentially ambiguous. The Court now turns to each party's argument to determine if the contract language is reasonably susceptible to the reading put forth.
The Order stated:
Section 7.4 is ambiguous and subject to different interpretations. It first lists the "permitted" monetary remedies available to the parties in the event of a breach. Its list of remedies, as City Defendants assert, includes only one type of claim for monetary recovery: "a contract Claim ... to recover money due to Alameda or Developer as a payment of Pre–Development Costs or reimbursement of excess Pre–Development Cost deposits." If the provision ended there, then City Defendants' interpretation might be persuasive. However, the provision continues, and creates an important exception: neither party may recover "special, indirect or consequential damages."
When interpreting contracts, the agreement must be "read as a whole in a manner which reconciles apparent repugnancies and, to the extent possible, gives some meaning to each clause." S. Pac. Land Co. v. Westlake Farms, Inc., 188 Cal.App.3d 807, 823, 233 Cal.Rptr. 794 (1987) (finding that an inconsistency between two lease terms gave "rise to a facial ambiguity which invite[d] the admission of extrinsic evidence"). City Defendants ask this Court to interpret section 7.4 in a way that leaves the exception for special, indirect, and consequential damages superfluous and without meaning or effect. That the parties specifically included an exception for such damages suggests that they believed that without the exception, the provision would have allowed them to recover such damages. Because the parties created an exception for special, indirect, and consequential damages, and did not create an exception for reliance damages, the clause appears subject to an interpretation that allows for recovery of reliance damages. Dkt. 93.
1. City Interpretation
The City argues the Remedies clause must be examined as a whole, and that taking all the language together, it is not susceptible to an interpretation that provides recovery of all general restitution costs. The City points first to the first sentence of the remedies clause, which states "neither Alameda nor Developer shall be entitled to damages or monetary relief other than as set forth in this Section 7.4." Thus, the City argues that unless affirmatively "set forth" in Section 7.4, "damages or monetary relief" are not available as a remedy.
The second sentence sets out four "permitted remedies," the fourth of which is relevant here: "a contract Claim (as defined in Section 15.5 below) to recover money due to Alameda or Developer as a payment of Pre–Development Costs or reimbursement of excess Pre–Development Cost deposits under Section 6 of this Agreement;...." Defined in Section 6, the permitted "contract Claim" refers to a narrow category of costs—whatever positive or negative balance remains in the Negotiating Cost Account after termination of the ENA.
The City then argues that the final clause refers back to the "permitted remedies" set out in the second sentence: "provided, however, neither Alameda nor Developer shall be liable, regardless of whether the Claim is based in contract or tort, for any special, indirect or consequential damages." The City argues that this final clause makes it clear that the monetary relief specifically permitted in the second sentence of Section 7.4—the "contract Claim" related to deposits into the Negotiating Cost Account—does not permit recovery of "any special, indirect or consequential damages." For example, the City could recover the underpaid amounts for its Pre–Development Costs but it could not recover a late fee charged by a consultant who was not timely paid because of a deficit in the Negotiating Costs Account. The City argues that since the parties had created an express remedy for a category of out of pocket costs in the immediately preceding sentence, it would have been contradictory to add "reliance damages" or "out-of-pocket costs" to the list of prohibited damages in the final clause. The City provides a graphic to illustrate their understanding of the structure of the section:
The clause is reasonably susceptible to such an interpretation of the plain language.
2. SCC Alameda Interpretation
SCC Alameda argues generally that reliance damages are allowed because the parties did not explicitly agree to preclude reliance damages in Section 7.4. See Copeland v. Baskin Robbins U.S.A., 96 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1262–63, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 875 (2002) (reliance damages generally available for breach of a contract to negotiate an agreement). SCC Alameda argues that Section 7.4 specifically excludes "special, indirect or consequential damages," but does not list reliance damages, and thus, they are not excluded. SCC cites to our prior order to support the argument that their interpretation is plausible. Dkt. 93.
SCC Alameda then argues that when the ENA is read as a whole, it supports the award of all reliance damages. In general, when interpreting contracts, the agreement must be "read as a whole in a manner which reconciles apparent repugnancies and, to the extent possible, gives some meaning to each clause." S. Pac. Land Co. v. Westlake Farms, Inc., 188 Cal.App.3d 807, 823, 233 Cal.Rptr. 794 (1987). SCC Alameda argues the City's interpretation in inconsistent with the language of the rest of the ENA.
First, SCC argues that Section 7.4 was not intended to be an exhaustive list of remedies under the contract. SCC Alameda points out that the ENA provides for remedies not found in Section 7.4, which the City acknowledges. The City stated that "liability for breach would be limited to returning the $1 million deposit." Mot. at 5:10–13. SCC Alameda's right to a refund of the $1 million deposit in the event of a breach by the City is not mentioned anywhere in Section 7.4, but rather, is provided for in Section 8.2 of the ENA:
In the event of an Alameda Event of Default pursuant to Section 7.2 above, Developer may terminate this Agreement by delivery of written notice to Alameda, provided that a Developer Default Notice has been and any period of a right to cure has passed without such cure occurring. If this agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 8.2, Developer shall be entitled to a refund of the Initial Payment, together with any interest accrued thereon. Such refund obligation shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
Newdorf Decl. Ex. 1 § 8.2. Thus, the City contends that Section 8.2—not Section 7.4—entitles SCC Alameda to the return of the $1 million deposit in the event the City breaches its obligation to negotiate in good faith. Mot. at 10:25–11:11 (citing Little Depo. at 32:15–33:5). SCC argues that the City cannot have it both ways—Section 7.4 either contains an exhaustive list of remedies, or it does not. This is possible way to interpret the language. Still, Section 8.2 refers to the return of the $1 million Initial Payment as a "refund," and as an obligation that would survive the termination or expiration of the ENA. Thus, it is cast in a different light than a simple remedy for a breach of the agreement, like the remedies (listed specifically as remedies for breach of the ENA) in Section 7.4. Yet, this may create some ambiguity in the contract.
SCC Alameda's other main argument relates to the definition of pre-development costs in Section 7.4. SCC argues that subdivision (iv) of Section 7.4 treats "money due to Alameda or Developer as a payment of Pre-development Costs" separate and apart from any "reimbursement of excess Pre–Development Costs" because they are separated by the word "or." SCC then argues that this allows them to be reimbursed for all their pre-development costs. This is not a reasonable interpretation of the Section language.
Clause (iv) states: "a contract Claim ... to recover money due to Alameda or Developer as a payment of Pre–Development Costs or reimbursement of excess Pre–Development Cost deposits under Section 6 of this Agreement...."
"Pre–Development Costs" was a defined term from the first draft of the ENA (Newdorf Decl. Ex. F §§ 5.2, 5.3) through the final agreement ( Id. Ex. 1 §§ 6.2, 6.3). It referred exclusively to City costs that SCC Alameda funded through the Negotiating Cost Account. Given the definition of Pre–Development Costs, it is not possible to interpret the reference to a contract Claim for Pre–Development Costs to mean a claim for all of SCC Alameda's out-of-pocket expenses. Even adopting the reading urged by SCC (i.e., reading the first part separate and apart from the last part) does no good since the term is defined specifically in a way that clearly does not include all out-of-pocket costs. Thus, this argument is unavailing.
"Pre–Development Costs" is defined in Section 6.2 as follows:
Developer shall reimburse Alameda for its pre-development costs, which shall consist of third-party consultant and legal costs and expenses and Alameda staff time, as such staff time shall be reflected in the Annual budget (as defined below), related to the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement and the Transaction Documents (the "Pre–Development Work"), incurred from and after the Effective Date (the "Pre–Development Costs") .... (emphasis in original).
Under Section 6 of the ENA, SCC Alameda funded Alameda's Pre–Development Costs by making "Quarterly Deposits" into a "Negotiating Cost Account," from which the City's costs were reimbursed. ENA §§ 6.3, 6.3.1.
Still, as discussed above, the language of the Remedies clause is reasonably susceptible to the meaning put forth by SCC Alameda. Thus, since the language is reasonably susceptible to both meanings, the Court will turn to the extrinsic evidence.
B. Extrinsic Evidence
Since the language is reasonably susceptible to interpretations put forth by both parties, the Court examines the proffered extrinsic evidence to see if it supports the contract being reasonably susceptible to the interpretation provided by either party. There are two key pieces of evidence that shed light on the contract's meaning—contemporaneous notes of the first negotiating meeting and the language of the drafts that were exchanged back and forth—along with a large amount of deposition testimony. The deposition testimony largely discusses only each party's internal discussions and intent rather than demonstrating whether intentions were communicated to the other side such that there was a meeting of the minds.
Undisclosed communications and understandings are not credible extrinsic evidence and may not be used by the Court to determine the parties' mutual intent. Brant v. California Dairies, Inc., 4 Cal.2d 128, 133, 48 P.2d 13 (1935) (finding defendant's testimony as to his personal belief of what contract meant was "incompetent and inadmissible"). Thus, testimony regarding what the parties thought about the meaning of the language, or plans they did not discuss with the other side, cannot be taken into account in determining the parties' mutual intent and the meaning of the contract language.
1. Contemporaneous Notes and Related Deposition Testimony
At the first meeting between the parties, the City's outside counsel, JoAnne Dunec, took contemporaneous handwritten notes of the meeting. Newdorf Decl. Ex. 17; Dunec Dep. 39:20–40:11; 40:19–41:9. Ms. Dunec wrote that one attendee said: "If Alameda defaults—recovery of costs by SunCal." According to the notes, Alameda's David Brandt, lead negotiator for the City, responded that he "won't agree." Newdorf Decl. Ex. 17. This demonstrates that the City clearly expressed to SCC Alameda that it would not include a provision for the recovery of all out-of-pocket costs in the contract.
The deposition testimony is not as clear on this point. Brandt testified that he said directly to SCC Alameda that he refused to agree to a return of out-of-pocket costs. Brandt Depo. 54:22 ("I refused to agree to that."). SCC Alameda parties testified that they brought up that they wished to recover out-of-pocket costs, and were upset that it was not included in the initial draft of the contract:
Q. Now, in section the notes refer to section 7.5, Remedies, which is also in this draft. It says, "Costs incurred up until termination and $1 million."
Do you recall, you or someone else on behalf of SunCal, stating that as a remedy that SunCal wanted?
A. Yes. Again, my most clear recollection is at the meeting in David Brandt's office; but again, it was a very important point for us to bring up. Yes, I do remember bringing it up.
Q. And in section 7.2, JoAnne Dunec's notes say—in section 7.2, if you look at the draft, it says, "Default of Alameda." JoAnne Dunec's notes say, "If Alameda defaults, recovery of costs by SunCal. DB won't agree."
Now, you remember a discussion with David Brandt after a joint meeting. Do you remember this discussion during a joint meeting?
A. He may have said it in that meeting as well. I don't specifically agree, but I remember that his—I don't recall him specifically saying that the City wouldn't agree. I remember him saying it was an important issue for the City.
Myers Depo. 29:7–30:3, cited at p. 6, line 11 of the Opposition [Miller Decl. Ex. H].
Q. Right. So what is the most specific you can recall in terms of the discussions—not the internal discussions, but the discussions that included the City of Alameda on the issue of monetary recovery by SunCal in the event of a breach by the City of the ENA?
A. We were clearly not willing to accept the language in their initial draft. And we told them so.
Q. What specific language do you recall that you told the City SunCal wasn't willing to accept?
THE WITNESS: I recall that we indicated that we needed to be able to get back our cost if Alameda were in default.
Freilich Depo. 13:23–14:12, cited p. 6, line 9 of the Opposition [Miller Decl. Ex. D].
Still, the Court finds the contemporaneous notes are the most reliable extrinsic evidence available, and they demonstrate only that the City clearly stated disagreement with the proposal.
2. Drafting Revisions and Related Deposition Testimony
After the first meeting, the ENA went through "dozens" of drafts exchanged between the parties. Brandt Depo. 43:24–44:1. Three of those changes are relevant to the issue at hand. These are the return of the $1 million deposit, the addition and then removal of the "break-up fee" provision, and the changes to the language of Section 7.4 itself.
SCC Alameda on May 22, 2007 proposed draft language that permitted SCC Alameda to recover its $1 million deposit in the event of an Alameda Default. Newdorf Decl. Ex. 22 § 7.2. The City conceded this point, and the provision for return of the deposit in the event of Alameda Default was included in the final ENA. Newdorf Decl. Ex. 1 § 8.2. However, the drafts demonstrate that SCC Alameda never proposed specific language that would have allowed SCC Alameda to "get back our cost if Alameda were in default," as Ms. Freilich claimed it had "needed" from the outset.
SCC Alameda does point to deposition testimony where the parties make assertions that it would never have signed an agreement that did not allow it to recover all of its out-of-pocket costs in the event of a City breach, citing in part the deposition of its General Counsel, Bruce Cook, for his understanding of what the ENA terms meant regarding recoverability of reliance damages. Yet, Mr. Cook never attended any ENA negotiation sessions or spoke to any City officials before signing the ENA. His testimony accordingly lacks probative value regarding the intent of the parties. See Winet v. Price, 4 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1166 n. 3, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 554 (1992). The larger problem with this testimony is that SCC Alameda does not point to any extrinsic evidence that SCC Alameda communicated to the City that it actually would not sign the ENA without the ability to recover all out-of-pocket costs. In contrast, there is extrinsic evidence that the City communicated to SCC Alameda that it would not agree to the inclusion of recovery of all SCC Alameda's out-of-pocket costs.
The City cites to Mr. Cook's deposition, where he testified he did not attend any of the negotiating sessions nor have any direct communications with any officials or employees of the City of Alameda. Reply Decl. (dkt. 131) Ex. B. SCC Alameda objects to the Reply Declaration's introduction of three excerpts of deposition testimony by arguing that submission of new facts in a reply brief is improper if they should have been presented with the opening brief. Dkt. 133. SCC Alameda states there was no reason the testimony put in the Reply Declaration could not have been in the opening brief, since it was all available at that time. Opp'n at 1–2. The City replies that it could not have introduced the evidence in the opening brief because it was introduced for the purpose of showing that some of SCC Alameda's evidence in the Opposition (specifically the impression of General Counsel Bruce Cook, a statement of Leslie Little, and the scope of remedies available) lacked a foundation of personal knowledge or were incomplete. Dkt. 134. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(4) requires evidence in support of or in opposition to a summary judgment motion to be based on "personal knowledge" and show that the witness "is competent to testify on the matters stated." The reply evidence demonstrates some of the SCC Alameda evidence fails to meet this standard, and thus, the Court DENIES the objection to the introduction of the new testimony.
Despite the discussion concerning remedies at the first face-to-face meeting—and Ms. Freilich's insistence that SCC Alameda was "clearly not willing to accept the language in [Alameda's] initial draft"—SCC Alameda points to only one provision it proposed throughout the negotiating period that would have allowed it to recover its costs other than any unspent deposits made for the City's Pre–Development Costs. That is the "Break-up Fee," proposed in a draft dated June 11, 2007. SCC Alameda agreed to delete the 'break-up fee' provision from the subsequent June 16, 2007 draft. There is no evidence in the record of any other draft language proposed by SCC Alameda that explicitly concerned recovery of general out-of-pocket costs. David Brandt's testimony on this point is undisputed:
The Break Up Fee Provision stated:
In the event that prior to two (2) years after the expiration of the Term, as may be extended as provided herein, Alameda or any constituent thereof solicits, markets, or negotiates with any other person or entity regarding the development of control of the Project Site (or any portion thereof) or solicits or entertains bids or proposals for the disposition of the Project Site, then SunCal shall be entitled, at its election, to (i) the return of the Initial Payment plus any interest accrued thereto and (ii) a break-up fee in an amount equal to one hundred ten percent (110%) of the sum of the Pre-development Costs and any payments made by SunCal to Alameda pursuant to Section 6.3. Such payment shall be made [designate time of payment and payor.]
Q. Do you ever recall SunCal proposing a clause where it could—saying we get back our predevelopment costs in the event of breach?
A. I don't think they actually drafted something. They proposed it at the first meeting.
Q. But you don't recall ever seeing that request in a draft?
A. No.
Brandt Depo. 86:3–10. Thus, this drafting history demonstrates that the introduction of language explicitly allowing SCC Alameda recovery of general out-of-pocket costs was rejected.
SCC Alameda points to the revision of Section 7.4 as the decisive change in favor of its position. It argues that the pivotal change in the drafting language was "that the list of remedies would be permissive (i.e., non-exhaustive) rather than exclusive (i.e., exhaustive)." Opp'n at 6. SCC Alameda argues that its intention in changing the language from "sole and unique remedies" to "permitted remedies" was "to ensure that the list was not exhaustive and that reliance damages would be available in the event of a breach by the City." Opp'n at 19. This argument is not convincingly borne out by the changes actually made, which are shown redlined below:
7.4 7.5 Remedies. In any action at law or equity or other legal or administrative proceeding to remedy an a Developer Event of Default or an Alameda Event of Default of this Agreement or otherwise enforce this Agreement, or that otherwise may arise out of this Agreement, the sole and unique remedies shall consist of neither Alameda nor Developer shall be entitled to damages or monetary relief other than as set forth in this Section. Permitted remedies shall include (i) mandatory or injunctive relief, (ii) writ of mandate, or (iii (iii) termination of this Agreement or (iv) a contract Claim (as defined Section 15.5 below) to recover money due to Alameda or Developer as a payment of Pre-development Costs or reimbursement of excess Pre-development Cost deposits under Section 6 of this Agreement . Neither ; provided, however that neither Alameda nor Developer shall be liable, regardless of whether the Claim is based in contract or tort, for any special, indirect or consequential damages.
Newdorf Decl. Ex. 9 § 7.4.
SCC Alameda's argument focuses exclusively on the highlighted portion of the revised draft and ignores the proposed addition of a new first sentence prohibiting recovery of any "damages or monetary relief" other than those "set forth." SCC Alameda made all of these revisions to Section 7.4 at the same time.
SCC Alameda mentions the first sentence prohibiting "damages or monetary relief" in support of its argument that Section 7.4 is not "exhaustive" because (as the parties agree) the Developer may recover its $1 million deposit in the event of a City breach, and this remedy is not mentioned in Section 7.4.
There is some tension between the first sentence of Section 7.4 and Section 8.2, which expressly states that the Developer may recover a refund of its Initial Payment in the event of an Alameda Default. Arguably, if there were a dispute as to the recoverability of the $1 million deposit, the Court would have to harmonize both provisions and give effect to both to the extent practicable. The specific provisions of Section 8.2 as to the deposit would likely prevail over the general waiver of all "damages or monetary relief" except as "set forth" in Section 7.4. Still, the City agrees that if SCC Alameda were to prevail in this lawsuit, it could recover the $1 million deposit. It argues instead that nothing about the interface between sections 7.4 and 8.2 supports SCC Alameda's contention that reliance damages are categorically recoverable. This is not completely convincing, but as discussed above, there are elements that distinguish the sections in a reasonable way—that Section 8.2 is a refund that would survive the termination of the ENA. Most importantly at this stage, as discussed further below, there is no convincing extrinsic evidence that the parties agreed this change would allow the broad recovery of general reliance damages. In fact, it demonstrates the wording was chosen because SCC Alameda know the City would not explicitly agree to that.
SCC Alameda offers no extrinsic evidence concerning the meaning of the first sentence of Section 7.4 and is silent concerning any interpretation that differs from its plain meaning. It makes no attempt to harmonize that sentence with the rest of Section 7.4. It simply suggests that the first sentence of Section 7.4 should be ignored because it is not "exhaustive" in light of Section 8.2.
SCC Alameda's approach—to in essence ignore the first sentence of Section 7.4—runs afoul of one of the fundamental rules of contract interpretation. "The whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other." Cal. Civil Code § 1641.
SCC Alameda cannot avail itself of any uncertainty based on the conflict between the first sentence of Section 7.4 and Section 8.2 because SunCal itself created any possible uncertainty. It drafted and proposed these two conflicting terms. SeeCal. Civil Code § 1654 ("In cases of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rules, the language of a contract should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist.").
While the contractual prohibition on "special, indirect and consequential damages" was part of the original form language from another transaction, the first sentence of Section 7.4 was added (by SCC Alameda) after the parties had discussed the recoverability of out-of-pocket costs. This language therefore cannot be dismissed as mere surplusage that adds nothing to the final clause prohibiting "special, indirect or consequential damages."
SCC Alameda's witnesses testified that they understood that the original and early drafts of the ENA did not permit SCC Alameda to recover its reliance damages. Myers Depo. 43:3–9, cited at p. 7, line 13 of the Opposition [Miller Decl. Ex. H]. SCC Alameda's main argument is that the changes it proposed to the Remedies provision in a July 3, 2007 draft "would ensure that reliance damages were recoverable." Opp'n at 6.
According to SCC Alameda's Myers, there was no discussion of the change in Section 7.4 that purportedly allowed recovery of all general reliance damages:
MR. NEWDORF: Q. Was there any communication that you had with the City of Alameda that led you to believe that the City representatives agreed that SunCal could recover its out-of-pocket costs in the event of an Alameda default?
A. Not that I recall, other than our acceptance of the language. So, no. But no conversations, no.
Q. Did you have an understanding that with the changes made in section 7.4, that Alameda—excuse me—that SunCal would be entitled to recover its out-of-pocket costs in the event of an Alameda default?
Q. But you never expressed that understanding to anyone at the City of Alameda?
THE WITNESS: I never had a—I don't recall having a conversation about it. They accepted the language, so we believe the issue was put to rest.
SCC Alameda negotiator and in-house counsel Amy Freilich testified at deposition that she was less certain than Myers as to the import of this change. She said "we would [have] liked to express [ ] clearly" that reliance damages were recoverable (Freilich Depo. 67:14–15), but "we felt that we were going to be able to—not to move the City any further but that this gave us the room to make an argument for reliance damages" (Freilich Depo. 69:3–7 [Newdorf Decl. Ex. C].) Thus, SCC Alameda did not propose any language that would have specifically and explicitly allowed general reliance damages because it knew the City would reject such language. Moreover, this demonstrates there was no discussion of the alleged broad expansion wrought by this change and thus, no evidence supporting mutual intent supporting SCC Alameda's interpretation of the language.
The evidence demonstrates that the original draft did not include explicit language allowing out-of-pocket costs, that the City clearly expressed their unwillingness to agree to inclusion of the recovery of such costs, and though SCC Alameda states they were unhappy and would not have signed a final version to this effect, they present no extrinsic evidence that demonstrates they introduced language that would clearly allow for such costs, or stated openly to the City that they thought the revisions to the contract allowed for such costs. Thus, the extrinsic evidence demonstrates only a meeting of the minds that the City would not agree to the recovery of out-of-pocket costs, and thus the section is not reasonably susceptible to an alternate explanation based on the extrinsic evidence. This is supported by a plain reading of the language that does not allow for recovery of such general costs.
For the forgoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion for partial summary judgment.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Necessity is certainly the mother of invention when it comes to improving systems on a boat or skiff.
Captain Steve Betz was frustrated by pump failures. He was going through pumps about every 3 months. They would air lock at times so he would have to get the boat moving to start the flow. Most of the times the pumps were noisy. They also seemed to lack the power to supply a good flow to the live well.
Capt. Steve first learned about Pump Boxes and their benefits from fellow Capt. Jim Lemke. He had been using one for a couple of years without any failures. After some research he thought he could build a better one on his own. It wasn't about the money for Capt. Steve, it was the fact that he liked building things. As with any boat project, he had more in time and materials when he built the first one than he could of just purchased.
Steve found that using a pump box removes the chance of an air lock. Drop the boat in the water and flip the switch. Instant flow. Being inside a box and surrounded by water at all times the pumps not only run cooler and last longer they are practically silent. He's never had any issues with water flow since.
The first one he built for his boat was big and took up a lot of room in the bilge. He kept looking at it and decided to build a smaller version. He needed someone to test it and found a fellow captain to put it in his boat and give it a shot. It worked flawlessly but he still wasn't happy with the mold design.
Captain Steve's wheels are always turning and he thought if he can make the box nicer and cleaner he would take it to market. That is when he went to work building a new mold and figuring out ways to make it easier to replace pumps.
That was the start of the Betz Box. So far his design is as pictured. He is constantly working on improving it.
Coming to market soon will be a single and triple pump box, both of which have been heavily requested.
Captain Steve has not had a pump failure in over 2 years. The other captain running the proto type box is going on 2 years with no failures.


text:
Der Personenaufzug Bad Schandau ist ein 1904 in Bad Schandau errichteter Personenaufzug, der von Bad Schandau auf die Ostrauer Scheibe, eine Ebenheit um den Ortsteil Ostrau, führt. Die Nutzung ist gebührenpflichtig. Der Personenaufzug ähnelt sehr dem 1903 bis 1905 erbauten Hammetschwand-Lift in der Schweiz, hat aber eine geringere Bauhöhe.

Technik und Geschichte
Der örtliche Hotelier Rudolf Sendig regte den Bau an und finanzierte ihn aus seinem persönlichen Vermögen. Der Aufzug wurde durch die Firma August Kühnscherf & Söhne hergestellt und am Karsamstag 1905 eingeweiht. Er fährt in einem 52,26 Meter hohen, im Jugendstil gestalteten und bei der Firma Kelle & Hildebrandt in Großluga fabrizierten Stahlfachwerkturm nach oben, welcher am Boden einen Durchmesser von 5,20 Metern und in der Höhe des Ausstiegs einen solchen von 2,50 Metern hat. Dabei überwindet er einen Höhenunterschied von 47,76 Metern. Am oberen Ausstieg befindet sich eine 1,25 Meter breite Aussichtsplattform. Diese ist durch eine 27,80 Meter lange Brücke mit der Spitze der Felswand verbunden.

Der Antrieb des Aufzugs erfolgte seit Beginn durch elektrischen Strom, bis 1921 mit Gleichstrom. Dieser wurde während der Sommermonate der Fahrleitung der elektrischen Kirnitzschtalbahn entnommen, im Winter und im Notfall erfolgte die Versorgung durch einen Akkumulator, der vorher aus dem Ortsnetz gespeist wurde.

Während des Ersten Weltkrieges war der Betrieb der Anlage eingestellt. 1921 wurde der Antrieb des Personenaufzugs auf Drehstrom umgestellt, für den Notbetrieb blieb eine Handkurbel. 1950 wurde eine Treibscheibenfördermaschine eingebaut. Im Jahr 1954 wurde die Anlage unter Denkmalschutz gestellt. 1961 wurden zwei zusätzliche Abspannseile und 1978 eine neue Steuerung angebracht. In den Jahren 1989/1990 wurde die Anlage renoviert.

Der Aufzug im Film
Der Personenaufzug war Schauplatz einiger Szenen in Wes Andersons 2013 gedrehtem Film Grand Budapest Hotel.

Literatur
 Mario Schatz: Seilbahnen der DDR. Geschichte – Technik – Betrieb. transpress VEB Verlag für Verkehrswesen, Berlin 1987, ISBN 3-344-00159-0, S. 190–193.
 Richard Stroetmann, Holger Flederer, Holger Schmidt, Lars Sieber: Personenaufzug Bad Schandau. Revitalisierung eines denkmalgeschützten Turmbauwerks. In: Stahlbau, Jahrgang 78 (2009), H. 9, S. 662–676; doi:10.1002/stab.200910081.

Weblinks

 Historischer Personenaufzug auf der Webseite von Bad Schandau

Einzelnachweise

Verkehrsbauwerk im Landkreis Sächsische Schweiz-Osterzgebirge
Personenaufzug
Personenaufzug
Freistehender Aufzug
Verkehr (Sächsische Schweiz)
Bauwerk des Jugendstils in Sachsen
Bauwerk aus Metall
Erbaut in den 1900er Jahren
Aussichtspunkt
Personenverkehr (Deutschland)


text:
Kobe Bryant's Company Kobe Inc. Files To Trademark 'Black Mamba'
D'Angelo Russell, Julius Randle Invited To Play For Team USA Select Team
It has been almost a month since Kobe Bryant played his final NBA game for the Los Angeles Lakers and although he could've used some much-needed time off after 20 years of service, the future Hall of Famer has been busy running his company Kobe Inc.
According to ESPN's Darren Rovell, Kobe Inc. has filed to trademark Bryant's synonymous nickname, Black Mamba:
Kobe Inc., the business arm of recently retired Los Angeles Lakers guard Kobe Bryant, has filed to trademark his familiar nickname "Black Mamba."
The company filed for the trademark May 2, a record with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shows, with intent to use the nickname on everything from athletic apparel to sneakers.
After watching Quentin Tarantino's classic, "Kill Bill," Bryant took a shine to the nickname made famous by the lead character played by Uma Thurman. The Black Mamba nickname and the logo used in the movie became part of Bryant's persona with the NBA superstar calling himself the Black Mamba as he entered the post-Shaquille O'Neal chapter of his basketball career with the Lakers.
Bryant's attempt to trademark "Black Mamba" is one of many others Kobe Inc. is looking to use moving forward, via Rovell:
Black Mamba is the 11th trademark filing for Kobe Inc. Other phrases that the company has filed for include "HeroVillain," "Create Forever," "Dream Epic" and "Friends Hang Sometimes, Banners Hang Forever."
With Bryant settling into his post-basketball career, there's bound to be many more headlines made by the five-time NBA champion in the coming years. Bryant is determined to be as successful in his next endeavor with Kobe Inc. as he was during his two decades wearing the purple and gold and he hasn't wasted any time making the transition.
VIDEO: Dwight Howard Makes Halfcourt Hook Shot In Practice
Dwight Howard isn't exactly the most proficient three-point shooter but… …he made…
Rey Moralde
Los Angeles Lakers Vs. Denver Nuggets NBA Highlights
The Los Angeles Lakers were home Tuesday night after spending their last…
Lakers News: Kobe Bryant Relished Opportunity To Learn While Playing Against Michael Jordan
Episode 5 of "The Last Dance," an ESPN documentary series featuring Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls…
The Kobe Bryant Generation
Kobe Bryant may have ridden off into the sunset last April, but the impact of the Lakers legend is still being felt…
Trevor Lane


Patron Information Name Max Bishop Nickname Residence 322 Main St.
Additional Info Notation "Fines not paid cancelled"
Census Data Name Bishop, M.S.
18950211Monday, February 11th, 1895 View Page 089898989 Perlycross : a novel.Perlycross : a novel. Max Bishop 28802880 Max BishopMax Bishop Original transaction lists patron # as 2830, but this was likely an error and has been changed to reflect Max Bishop's actual patron # 2880.
18941115Thursday, November 15th, 1894 View Page 086498649 My heart's darling.My heart's darling. Max Bishop 28802880 Max BishopMax Bishop "55" written after patron name.
18920413Wednesday, April 13th, 1892 View Page 012121212 The story of the White-Rock Cove : with illustrations.The story of the White-Rock Cove : with illustrations. Max Bishop 28802880 Max BishopMax Bishop Original transaction lists patron # as 2882, but this was likely an error and has been changed to reflect Max Bishop's actual patron # 2880.
18920211Thursday, February 11th, 1892 View Page 077377737 Footprints in the forest.Footprints in the forest. Max Bishop 28802880 Max BishopMax Bishop Original transaction lists patron # as 2882, but this was likely an error and has been changed to reflect Max Bishop's actual patron # 2880.


The report "Automotive Airbags & Seatbelts Market by Airbags Type (Frontal, Knee, & Side & Curtain), Seatbelts type (2-point & 3-point), vehicle (PC, LCV, Buses, & Trucks), EV (BEV, PHEV, HEV, & FCEV), and Region - Global Forecast to 2025", The automotive airbags & seatbelts market is estimated to be USD 61.38 Billion in 2018 and is projected to reach 135.43 Billion by 2025, at a CAGR of 11.97%. The market is principally driven by the increasing demand for a safer, efficient, and convenient driving experience and stringent safety regulations across the globe.
Browse 83 market data Tables and 47 Figures spread through 134 Pages and in-depth TOC on "Automotive Airbags & Seatbelts Market by Airbags Type (Frontal, Knee, & Side & Curtain), Seatbelts type (2-point & 3-point), vehicle (PC, LCV, Buses, & Trucks), EV (BEV, PHEV, HEV, & FCEV), and Region - Global Forecast to 2025"
The government mandates for installation of 3-point seatbelts will contribute to the growth of the automotive airbags & seatbelts market for this seatbelt type. 3-point seatbelts provide protection against front-end collision. It goes over the waist and the shoulder of the occupant. It provides better protection than 2-point seatbelts. Therefore, their better efficiency over 2-point seatbelts will help to hold the largest market share.
HEV is estimated to hold the largest share of the automotive airbags & seatbelts market, by electric vehicle. Stringent emission norms, environment safety, vehicle electrification, and government regulations are expected to boost the market for HEV airbags & seatbelts. Governments around the globe are encouraging the sale of electric vehicles by offering incentives to customers and subsidies to electric vehicle OEMs. This will help drive the automotive airbags & seatbelts market for electric vehicles.
The Asia Pacific region is estimated to hold the largest share, by value, of the automotive airbags & seatbelts market in 2018. The demand for automotive airbags & seatbelts in this region is triggered by increasing vehicle production in developing nations such as China and India and the increasing number of luxury vehicles in countries such as China and Japan. This region is also the leading producer of automobiles in the world.
The report analyzes all major tier I suppliers in the automotive airbags & seatbelts market. Autoliv (Sweden), ZF Friedrichshafen (Germany), Denso (Japan), Aptiv (UK), and Joyson Electronics (China) are some of the leading suppliers in the automotive airbags & seatbelts market.


Works closely with members of cross-functional teams to design, develop and maintain software products and capabilities.
Mentors less senior team members, and peer reviews product artifacts including requirement specifications, design specifications, code, etc.
May lead small software development teams of software developers.
Evaluates new software development technologies, tools and practices. Recommends adoption of new tools.
Experience with design and implementation of n-tier systems, reusable libraries and development frameworks.
Degree in Computer Science or Engineering.
Excellent two-way communication skills – both oral and written.
Excellent analytical, problem solving and decision making skills.
Proven technical leadership and facilitation skills. Team player with strong collaboration skills.
Experience with developing data-processing software for life sciences or medical device products.
Experience working in regulated environments.


text:
Implemented Projects
Projects In Development
ARCHITECTURAL-HISTORICAL COMPLEX "SOUTHERN FORTRESS WALL AND TOWER"
Review from Romania for Architectural and Historical Complex "Southern Fortress Wall and Tower"
Dear Mr. Chairman,
Today I was able to visit your website, it works properly, as you wrote me, and I must tell you that I am deeply impressed with your work and what you have done to restore and preserve this amazing place. Double bravo! I am fascinated by ancient history, Roman, Byzantine and now Thracian, and I must say that after Istanbul and Rome I found two more amazing places I am already in love with – Sozopol and Nessebar, two impressive museum cities. I travel to these places with my little daughter, to whom I present the ancient history, not only on book, not only from the site, but also on the spot. That is why every time we have the opportunity we visit a historic town, on the spot, as we did last year in Sozopol. My first information about you is from the point of interest of Google Maps in Sozopol, but I guess there are many more things to see and that is why we want to return to Sozopol and visit the places we missed. I am so happy to have found your amazing article in section "News" on the website about the work of your foundation to discover and preserve the rich cultural heritage and I can only imagine how exciting it is to discover an ancient object or building remains hidden in the ground after many years……Thank you again for your work and your care for world history and heritage!
Hats off!
Greetings from the country of Dracula, Romania!
Irinel Dobrisor.
Chief Scientific Consultant at the Sozopol Foundation with successful defense for obtaining the scientific degree "Doctor of Science"
On April 12, 2021 at the University of National and World Economy / UNWE / was held a public defense for the award of the degree "Doctor of Science", which Prof. Dr. Tanya Parusheva, Chief Scientific Adviser at the Sozopol Foundation in in the field of sustainable development of tourism and intangible cultural heritage, defended a dissertation on: "A New Paradigm of Cultural Tourism in the Context of Globalization". The research is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the University of National and World Economy and 30 years since the establishment of the Department of Tourism Economics.
A scientific jury, composed of proven specialists in the field of cultural heritage and tourism, unanimously decided to award the scientific degree "Doctor of Science" to Prof. Dr. Tanya Parusheva – Lecturer in the Department of Tourism Economics at UNWE and Chief Scientific Officer. consultant to the Sozopol Foundation in the field of sustainable development of tourism and intangible cultural heritage.
From left to right: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nikolay Tsonev, Prof. Dr. Hristina Nikolova, Prof. Dr. Tanya Parusheva, Prof. Dr. Violeta Mutafchieva and Prof. Dr. Manol Ribov
For the final, Prof. Dr. Parusheva had prepared a special surprise for all those present in the hall and those who took part in the event online. In unison with the research and based on her exceptional experience in the field of intangible cultural heritage, Prof. Parusheva had invited part of the choir "Bistrishki Babi", included in the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage List.
Another great success for the non-governmental sector in Bulgaria worldwide.
The International Reporting and Election Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations – Official Partners of UNESCO was held on December 16-18 at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Elections for members and Chairman of the NGO-UNESCO Liaison Committee were held during these days in December.The Sozopol Foundation, Bulgaria, was elected to the ten members of the Management Board. This is another recognition for the active work of the Bulgarian non-governmental organization.
The Chairman of the Sozopol Foundation, Mr. Kiril Arnautski, thanked all participants for their activity and honor, with our election for a third term as members of the NGO-UNESCO Liaison Committee. He stressed that the experience of the Foundation's experts will contribute to its good performance as a member of this high, global forum, such as the NGO-UNESCO Liaison Committee.
The Permanent Representative of the Sozopol Foundation to UNESCO, Ms. Petya Zelenski, thanked everyone for the expressed trust and stressed that it will be protected with dedicated work.
She presented to the participants the idea of the Sozopol Foundation during the forthcoming term – Bulgaria to host again an international forum organized by the Sozopol Foundation under the auspices of UNESCO. Our country has already organized one in 2014 on the topic "The role of youth in preserving the tangible and intangible cultural heritage".
Sozopol Foundation with a new initiative for Аncient Sozopol – European and world destination for cultural tourism
On September 30, the Sozopol Foundation presented the project "Sozopol, Preserved Cultural Heritage for the Centuries – 2020″ under the Europe Nostra European Cultural Heritage Awards Program.
The European Nostra Awards were established in 2002 by the European Commission and are supported by the Creative Europe program. Since its launch, Europa Nostra, the European voice of civil society committed to cultural heritage, has been responsible for managing this award scheme based on its many years of experience and experience in publicly recognizing individual or collective achievements in cultural heritage at European level.
General plan of the Renaissance walls of Ibiza – Spain
These annual awards aim to identify and promote best practices in the preservation of tangible and intangible cultural heritage, to stimulate cross-border exchanges of knowledge and experience across Europe, to raise public awareness and appreciation of Europe's cultural heritage and to promote more further excellent initiatives through the power of example.
The work of the Sozopol Foundation from its inception in 2002 to the present day fits fully into the requirements of the Europa Nostra Awards. The basis of the developed project is the Architectural and Historical Complex "Southern Fortress Wall and Tower", created and upgraded for over 17 years. The complex, acquainting everyone with the centuries-old history of Sozopol, has the real opportunity to receive one of the prestigious Awards!
Architectural and historical complex "Southern fortress wall and tower" is a powerful base, thanks to which Ancient Sozopol has become a leading world tourist destination. In 2015, this position was recognized and reflected with dignity by the World Tourism and Travel Council.
All Bulgarians, we expect to strengthen the achieved international authority of the Architectural and Historical Complex "Southern Fortress Wall and Tower" and the National Archaeological Reserve "Ancient City of Apollonia", an integral part of Ancient Sozopol – to continue to be the basis of the ancient city as a world tourist destination.
Sozopol – nature and culture, accessible to all in terms of COVID 19
Sozopol Foundation continues its active work as a national and international non-governmental organization for the benefit of civil society and its development. Experts of the Foundation developed a project proposal "Sozopol – nature and culture, accessible to all in terms of COVID 19″. On September 9, the Project Proposal was presented through the Electronic System for Submission and Acceptance of Projects under the Program "Small Initiatives Scheme" at the Active Citizens Fund Bulgaria. The envisaged project activities are for empowering vulnerable groups, training in advocacy, conducting and participating in advocacy campaigns. The activities detailed in the form will be performed on the territory of Sozopol municipality and Primorsko municipality.
Town of Sozopol Town of Primorsko
HONOR AND BOW TO THE MEMORY OF A GREAT BULGARIAN!
Start of the day – sunrise (July morning) – July 1, 2020, 05:23
On July 1, 2020 in the Archaeological Museum, Sozopol was unveiled a bust – a monument to Professor Bozhidar Dimitrov.
Central entrance of the Archaeological Museum "Prof. Bozhidar Dimitrov "- the town of Sozopol
The newly discovered bust-monument of Prof. Bozhidar Dimitrov
The bust – the monument was donated by Mr. Turhut Ismail from the village of Iskra, Karnobat region. The author of the bronze sculpture is the famous Plovdiv sculptor Mr. Ivan Totev. The monument was unveiled by Mr. Tihomir Yanakiev, Mayor of Sozopol Municipality. Kotzeto – Kalki performed part of an original Bulgarian song.
Mr. Tikhomir Yanayakiev and Kotseto-Kalki
Born in the town of Sozopol, Bozhidar Dimitrov (1945 – 2018) is a famous Bulgarian scientist – historian, publicist and public figure. Throughout his conscious life and as a long-term director of the National History Museum, he focused on public issues of cultural and historical heritage, a factor in preserving national identity and reviving patriotism among the Bulgarian people.
Professor Bozhidar Dimitrov worked tirelessly to preserve and present the cultural heritage and popularize his hometown Sozopol as a world tourist destination. The Sozopol Foundation took an active part in this activity. Over the years, the Sozopol Foundation has implemented a number of projects funded by national and international programs.
Professor Bozhidar Dimitrov was the Chief Scientific Consultant in the implementation of all projects implemented by the Sozopol Foundation, as an official partner of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Part of the fortress system of the Reserve, restored and preserved segment "Southern fortress wall and tower"
Professor Bozhidar Dimitrov is the initiator of providing funds for the restoration of the Orthodox Church "St. St. Cyril and Methodius "in the town of Sozopol.
The control over the implementation of the conservation, restoration, construction-repair and construction-assembly works of the church was entrusted to Father Ivan Popov and Kiril Arnautski.
Father Ivan Popov and Mr. Kiril Arnautski
Mr. Kiril Arnautski
Chairman of Sozopol Foundation Mrs. Love Baum
Cultural Heritage Expert at the Sozopol Foundation
A project developed in partnership between the Sozopol Foundation, the Republic of Bulgaria and the Essaouira-Mogador Association, the Kingdom of Morocco is applying for a UNESCO Participation Program
On June 30, 2020, the Project: "Sozopol and Essaouira – wide open doors between two civilizations" was presented under the Participation Program 2020-2021 at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The two non-governmental organizations have set for the implementation of activities in line with the main objectives and UNESCO Directives.
The planned project activities will be performed in the town of Sozopol, Republic of Bulgaria during the International Art Festival "Apollonia"
and the city of Essaouira, Kingdom of Morocco, during the Gnaoua International Arts Festival.
Expected results from the project implementation:
•promotion, support, development and preservation of cultural diversity;
•raising awareness, by promoting and raising the profile of UNESCO, based on the active work of the World Organization.
•Promoting the financial participation of UNESCO. Achieved compliance of the project activities with the adopted ethical standards of the World Organization;
•Prominent and visible achievement of gender equality – one of the two UNESCO Global Priorities;
•Capacity of a number of young people in preserving and promoting the rich cultural heritage;
•Strengthening the role of the world's intangible cultural heritage as a factor for mutual understanding between peoples, improving dialogue between them as a "living force for peace";
•The importance of the intangible cultural heritage for the establishment of national identities will be emphasized, as well as its role for achieving sustainable development – national, cross-border and international, through its maintenance and preservation for future generations.
The experience of the two non-governmental organizations in the projects implemented so far is a guarantee that the project proposal: "Sozopol and Essaouira – wide open doors between two civilizations" will be performed correctly, with high professionalism and will have the necessary sustainability.
The Sozopol Foundation, in official partnership with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), is ready with its 2019 reporting activity.
The Sozopol Foundation's Active Activity Report for 2019 is ready to be submitted to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Sector for Non-Governmental Organizations.
The first Bulgarian non-governmental organization in formal partnership with UNESCO – Sozopol Foundation submits its 2012 annual reports. Each year, following the priorities of UNESCO, the Foundation presents its active national and international activities through a Report to the World Organization. This activity of the Sozopol Foundation does not remain unnoticed by the leadership of UNESCO. Purposeful letters from:
•Mrs. Audrey Azule – General Manager
•Mr Ernesto Otone – Deputy Director-General for Culture
•Mr Firmin Edward Matoko – Deputy Director-General for Africa and external relations
•Mr Tim Curtis – Secretary of the 2003 Convention and Head of the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Sector
confirmed the active national and international activities of the Sozopol Foundation.
In 2019, the activities of the Sozopol Foundation were fruitful and diverse. The bright ray that accompanied the Foundation team was the satisfaction with the implementation of the activities under the Project: Chiprovtsi Carpets, World Heritage – Generation Property ". The project was funded by the World Organization's 2018-2019 Participation Program and co-funded by the Sozopol Foundation. Thanks to the financial assistance and logistical support of UNESCO, this element of the world's intangible cultural heritage has been promoted worldwide. For the correct and accurate implementation of the project activities, Sozopol Foundation submitted an evaluation report and a financial report to UNESCO.
Sozopol Foundation has prepared its Evaluation Report on the implementation of the Project: "Chiprovtsi Carpets, World Heritage – Generation Property". The project is funded by the UNESCO Participation Program.
The Sozopol Foundation, a non-governmental organization from Bulgaria and the Ring of the Balkans Foundation, a non-governmental organization from Serbia in partnership, have implemented the Project: "Chiprovtsi Carpets, World Heritage – Generation Property". The evaluation report concerning the implementation of the project is ready and will be sent to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Sector for Non-Governmental Organizations (UNESCO). The project was funded by the World Organization's 2018-2019 Participation Program and co-funded by the Sozopol Foundation.
Following closely the priorities of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the two partner organizations are working and will work extremely actively to preserve the intangible cultural heritage, promote it at national, regional and global level and to preserve it for the future. generations. The traditions of making Chiprovtsi carpets, the traditions of making Pirot carpets, their preservation and promotion, are of great importance for their preservation in the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Serbia.
Chiprovtsi carpets – an element of the UNESCO World Intangible Cultural Heritage Chiprovtsi carpets – an element of the UNESCO World Intangible Cultural Heritage
The project activities have been implemented in good quality and on time. All those involved in their performance have worked diligently and tirelessly. The project was supported by state institutions, local authorities, the non-governmental sector, civil society, media, etc., who, using their potential, contributed to the good implementation of all activities. The two non-governmental organizations, taking into account and in compliance with Article 1; 2; 11,12,13,14 of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of 2003, assist the governmental institutions in their activities for the preservation of the elements of the intangible cultural heritage .
Chiprovtsi carpets – an element of the UNESCO World Intangible Cultural Heritage
Intangible cultural heritage is that eternal power that draws and heralds the spiritual bond of the past-present of humanity, since it existed for times to come.
Bistritsa grandmothers – an element of the intangible
world UNESCO cultural heritage
An inherited tradition and culture that is constantly enriched with new achievements in modern times is the key to tomorrow's sustainable development. So, just as the natural world is diverse, so is the intangible cultural heritage associated with the specific geological and geographical environment of its origin and development, with people of different races, tribes and peoples – its bearers.
Cookery – an element of UNESCO's intangible cultural heritage Nesting – an element of
UNESCO World Intangible Cultural Heritage
Their mutual understanding and understanding, generated by the centuries-old communication between them in their quest for survival, development and future for generations, encourages their respect for each other, contributes to their social cohesion and promotes cultural dialogue in the vast cultural diversity.
Intangible cultural heritage is a major source of identity – a sense of belonging to a particular human community or communities, and through them – to society as a whole. It is also a real indicator of the spiritual elevation of man and community, marked by intellect, the brightness of talents, with a foothold in the deep roots of culture, developed and enriched in time. Intelligence is a quality that contributes to tolerance and tolerance among people, to the receptivity of cultural values and to cultural diversity.
Martenitsa – an element of the intangible cultural
world heritage of UNESCO
Before, during and after the implementation of the project, particular attention is paid to the contribution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to the achievement of the objectives and results achieved in the project.
The project has contributed to raising public awareness at the national and international level, and to increasing the visibility of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), based on the active and transparent activities of the World Organization in Bulgaria, Serbia and Southeastern Europe and in the whole world. The activities carried out were in accordance with the adopted rules and ethical standards of UNESCO.
Annual meeting organized by the NGO-UNESCO Liaison Committee and the World Organization's NGO Sector
On 26 February 2020, an organizational-informational meeting of the Liaison Committee (Managing Authority) of the UNESCO NGO and the UNESCO NGO Sector was held at the UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Fontenay 7. NGO representatives from all over the world attended the meeting.
The hall in which the annual meeting is held
and the NGO representatives present
The Liaison Committee provided information on the activities carried out in 2019. It was pointed out that despite the tense situation around the world, the activity of the non-governmental sector was maintained at a good level. It was emphasized that greater activity and commitment was needed by all to meet the needs and emerging challenges.
The Business Presidium at the Annual Meeting
The meeting was attended by Ms. Petya Zelensky, Permanent Representative of the Sozopol Foundation to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). At the beginning of her speech, Ms. Zelensky congratulated all those present on behalf of Mr. Cyril Arnautski, President of the Sozopol Foundation. She introduced the audience to the focused and active work of Sozopol Foundation at national and international level.
Ms. Petya Zelensky, Permanent Representative
of Sozopol Foundation to UNESCO
Ms. Petya Zelensky brought to the knowledge of all the good implementation of the Project: "Chiprovtsi Carpets – World Heritage, Generational Preserve". He informed them that the project was implemented correctly and precisely in partnership between the Sozopol Foundation, Bulgaria and the Ring of the Balkans Foundation, Serbia. She emphasized that the project was implemented thanks to financial assistance provided by UNESCO through the Participation Program 2018-2019, and thanked the two non-governmental organizations and local communities for the World Organization.
© 2014 Sozopol Foundation. All rights reserved.