Feed Agreements

CONSIDERING that FEEDER wish­es to enter into a con­tract with the cus­tomer for the pur­chase of cat­tle for the ben­e­fit of live­stock and for the main­te­nance and feed­ing of live­stock, feed­er being irrev­o­ca­bly eli­gi­ble for all prof­its and respon­si­ble for all loss­es suf­fered by live­stock under the con­di­tions below; Since then, FITs have become wide­spread […]

CONSIDERING that FEEDER wish­es to enter into a con­tract with the cus­tomer for the pur­chase of cat­tle for the ben­e­fit of live­stock and for the main­te­nance and feed­ing of live­stock, feed­er being irrev­o­ca­bly eli­gi­ble for all prof­its and respon­si­ble for all loss­es suf­fered by live­stock under the con­di­tions below; Since then, FITs have become wide­spread inter­na­tion­al­ly. Japan, Ger­many and Chi­na have all used them suc­cess­ful­ly over the past decade and, in total, dozens of coun­tries have used them in one way or anoth­er to pro­mote the devel­op­ment of renew­able ener­gy. It is esti­mat­ed that about three-quar­ters of the world‘s solar ener­gy is linked to feed-in tar­iffs. Despite the effec­tive role of feed-in tar­iffs in pro­mot­ing the devel­op­ment of renew­able ener­gy, some coun­tries are turn­ing away from their depen­dence and instead seek­ing more mar­ket-ori­ent­ed sources of sup­port and greater con­trol over renew­able ener­gy pro­duc­tion. These include Ger­many and Chi­na, two of FIT‘s most famous suc­cess­es. Nev­er­the­less, FITs con­tin­ue to play a cru­cial role in the devel­op­ment of renew­able ener­gy sources around the world. 5. The cus­tomer must with­hold all the nec­es­sary funds from the pro­ceeds of the sale to reim­burse the cus­tomer for the fol­low­ing items; (a) The ini­tial pur­chase price to the cus­tomer decreased from the “reserve” paid by FEEDER, as shown in para­graph 2 above. b) all food and care costs, includ­ing, but not lim­it­ed, yardage costs, vet­eri­nary expens­es and med­ical care for the dying dur­ing the feed­ing peri­od, as long as these costs have not been paid by FEEDER. © the cost of the option to pur­chase or oth­er CLIENT costs direct­ly relat­ed to the actions tak­en by the CLIENT to pro­tect the CLIENT‘s posi­tion. (d) inter­est on all amounts described in claus­es (a) and c) at a vari­able inter­est rate equal to the cost of cus­tomers by the Co-Bank of Oma­ha, plus a .%. The effec­tive inter­est rate at the begin­ning of this con­tract is — % and should vary depend­ing on the inter­est rate of the vari­ables charged by Co-Bank. Once the cus­tomer has been ful­ly refund­ed as described above, the CLIENT pays the remain­ing bal­ance to FEEDER.

If there is not enough rev­enue from the sale of cat­tle and the risk man­age­ment options described above to reim­burse the cus­tomer as described above, FEEDER will pay the CLIENT such a defi­cien­cy with­in 10 days. 3. The cus­tomer process­es the cat­tle and deter­mines the ration that should be brought to the cat­tle. The CLIENT does its best to prop­er­ly feed and care live­stock in its usu­al man­ner and pro­vides vet­eri­nary and med­ical care to live­stock at its sole dis­cre­tion. In addi­tion, dur­ing the feed­ing peri­od, THE CLIENT will con­sid­er the fol­low­ing risk man­age­ment options, which can be used to lim­it poten­tial loss­es in the cat­tle mar­ket; (a) Hedg­ing (b) Hedg­ing by put-options © For­ward Con­tract­ing (d) Any com­bi­na­tion of a), b) or c) CLIENT will do its best to use the meth­ods described above to lim­it poten­tial mar­ket loss­es on live­stock, but feeD­ER does not rec­og­nize any guar­an­tee of lim­it­ing poten­tial mar­ket loss­es on live­stock due to volatile mar­ket con­di­tions that may occur dur­ing the feed period. 

INGEN KOMMENTARER

Kommentarfeltet til denne artikkelen er nå stengt. Ta kontakt med redaksjonen dersom du har synspunkter på artikkelen.

til toppen