<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Case of the Day: Orange Middle East &#038; Africa v. Equatorial Guinea	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/05/23/case-day-orange-middle-east-africa-v-equatorial-guinea/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/05/23/case-day-orange-middle-east-africa-v-equatorial-guinea/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2024 02:05:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Zaft v. Golan &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/05/23/case-day-orange-middle-east-africa-v-equatorial-guinea/#comment-22507</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Zaft v. Golan &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 18:54:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=22613#comment-22507</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] same as saying that a notice is improper if sent by another method. But there is a deeper problem. We have seen in another context that there is a difference between an agreement that &#8220;all notices&#8221; are to be sent by a [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] same as saying that a notice is improper if sent by another method. But there is a deeper problem. We have seen in another context that there is a difference between an agreement that &#8220;all notices&#8221; are to be sent by a [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Hardy Exploration v. Government of India &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/05/23/case-day-orange-middle-east-africa-v-equatorial-guinea/#comment-2544</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Hardy Exploration v. Government of India &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2016 11:01:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=22613#comment-2544</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] was therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. &#167; 1608(a)(1).  I have written about this kind of issue before. The basic doctrine is that an &#8220;all-inclusive&#8221; notice provision in a contract [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] was therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. &sect; 1608(a)(1).  I have written about this kind of issue before. The basic doctrine is that an &#8220;all-inclusive&#8221; notice provision in a contract [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
