Example sentences of "[det] [noun sg] [prep] [art] [noun pl] the " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | The section gives some indication of the questions the company may ask , but it does not specify a format . |
| 2 | I 'd got a stripe pretty quickly but lacked another qualification for the duties the colonel , doubtless a frustrated journalist himself , had mapped out for me . |
| 3 | At this stage in the proceedings the papal party split up , Theophylact visiting Mercia and ‘ parts of Britain' ; George went into Northumbria , where a council was held in the presence of King Aelfwald and Eanbald , archbishop of York , in which canons were passed to correct the erroneous ways into which the Northumbrian Church was thought to have fallen . |
| 4 | On either side of the thrones the pictures of George III ( 1760–1820 ) and Queen Charlotte are by Harrington Mann , copied from the original paintings by Reynolds that now hang in the Royal Academy . |
| 5 | In Persian uses of Arabic script , for instance , words are distinguished from each other by the forms the letter takes at the beginning , middle or end of a word but there are no particular conventions for indicating where a sentence begins and ends . |
| 6 | Almost all of these estates had been mortgaged and German banks were unwilling to lend more money at the rates the Junkers requested . |
| 7 | You were there for four years and the they , they did n't just , if you were n't in by ten and you did n't get your proper night 's sleep then you would n't be any good on the wards the next morning . |
| 8 | By notice of appeal dated 22 April 1992 the father appealed on the grounds , inter alia , that ( 1 ) the judge was wrong in law to reject the submission that any consideration of the children 's welfare in the context of a judicial discretion under article 13 ( a ) of the Convention was relevant only as a material factor if it met the test of placing the children in an ‘ intolerable situation ’ under article 13 ( b ) ; ( 2 ) the judge should have limited considerations of welfare to the criteria for welfare laid down by the Convention itself ; ( 3 ) the judge was wrong in law to reject the submission that in the context of the exercise of the discretion permitted by article 13 ( a ) the court was limited to a consideration of the nature and quality of the father 's acquiescence ( as found by the Court of Appeal ) ; ( 4 ) in the premises , despite her acknowledgment that the exercise of her discretion had to be seen in the context of the Convention , the judge exercised a discretion based on a welfare test appropriate to wardship proceedings ; ( 5 ) the judge was further in error as a matter of law in not perceiving as the starting point for the exercise of her discretion the proposition that under the Convention the future of the children should be decided in the courts of the state from which they had been wrongfully removed ; ( 6 ) the judge , having found that on the ability to determine the issue between the parents there was little to choose between the Family Court of Australia and the High Court of England , was wrong not to conclude that as a consequence the mother had failed to displace the fundamental premise of the Convention that the future of the children should be decided in the courts of the country from which they had been wrongfully removed ; ( 7 ) the judge also misdirected herself when considering which court should decide the future of the children ( a ) by applying considerations more appropriate to the doctrine of forum conveniens and ( b ) by having regard to the likely outcome of the hearing in that court contrary to the principles set out in In re F. ( A Minor ) ( Abduction : Custody Rights ) [ 1991 ] Fam. 25 ; ( 8 ) in the alternative , if the judge was right to apply the forum conveniens approach , she failed to have regard to the following facts and matters : ( a ) that the parties were married in Australia ; ( b ) that the parties had spent the majority of their married life in Australia ; ( c ) that the children were born in Australia and were Australian citizens ; ( d ) that the children had spent the majority of their lives in Australia ; ( e ) the matters referred to in ground ( 9 ) ; ( 9 ) in any event on the facts the judge was wrong to find that there was little to choose between the Family Court of Australia and the High Court of England as fora for deciding the children 's future ; ( 11 ) the judge was wrong on the facts to find that there had been a change in the circumstances to which the mother would be returning in Australia given the findings made by Thorpe J. that ( a ) the former matrimonial home was to be sold ; ( b ) it would be unavailable for occupation by the mother and the children after 7 February 1992 ; and ( c ) there would be no financial support for the mother other than state benefits : matters which neither Thorpe J. nor the Court of Appeal found amounted to ‘ an intolerable situation . ’ |
| 9 | A.3.3 In the event of any such disclosure , or if the Purchaser becomes aware of any breach of the Warranties the Purchaser shall be entitled by notice in writing to the Vendor to rescind this Agreement . |