Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000176 66

Image

File
Download upr000176-066.tif (image/tiff; 26.45 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000176-066
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    Las Vegas - Dee ember 12, 19U$ V 23-1-51 Mr* 33, £* Bennetts Will appreciate year opinion of the proper method of refunding under C/A — X0#f0g the o on tract be- tween the LYL&V Co,, and Shipley and ing v&ter mains Installed la Creatwoo Ads sHoocnieast eTsr,a ctc,over­We have been refunding under the first portion of the contract covering Hooks 1, 2, and the Snaolret hw ahsa lfdu olfy rHeoccekiv e%d , cOooevte rSitnagt etmheisn tp aonrtdi oBinl lo fo ft he cons traction referred to as Unit # 1 where nine house s have been completed in Hook 1 and eighteen houses in Hook 2# cons true tiAardtdlitcil en aIlI Iw partoevri dmea#i nst hatto esuerbdvel vtihdee rr seamya in­Sitnag teHmoeonkts enadn d Bailflt erof thSiasl eh assu bmbietetne dd,o nwee a wnidl lt hree Cfousntd 50% of the revenues received fro® the South half of Hook 3* and Hooks b,5,6,7, and 8, He has now completed btuhte whaast enro mta iynest bseutbwmeietnt eHd oCookst 6 Satnatde 7m#e nta nadn dH o3c1k11 7 oaf nSda 8le, beoaus^ the line in Houston Drive has not be installed. 7 and 8, fTrhoimr wthyi hcohu wsees ahraev er ecbeeievni cnogn rsetvreuncuteesd ainnd Htohoeka question is whether we can refund 50% of these revenue s from Hocks 7 and # before the final oompletlonoCftthe contract. vlthhild tFhreosem are lfeugndasl usnttainld posiuncth, t1i maes assu mhee w eco mcpolueltde s the pipe line in Houston Drive and submits Cost Statem ent and Bill of Sale to ooverj however the intent of the con­rtervaecntu weass frtoo ma falflo rwda tSehri plseeyrv aicne so ppionr ttuhnei ttyr actot irenc aeniv ee ffort to reimburse him as far as possible for the *approaoh pipe which he Installed to the tract, tinder your interpretation of this contract ctoruacltd, weo rr meufsutn dw e$0 %b e ofc oanlfli nreedv etnou eH#o crkec 1ei, v2ed, farnodm t htehe naotr tthhi hs altfim oef i s3 7 to Hayv ooibdj eacnt airgnu bmreinntg isnugc ht ahse wseub hjaecdt w uipt h the Huntridge pip^le on the difference between a lege! obligation and a moral obligation to refund pipe line costs. A. M. Folger