The phrase "act were received" is not correct in written English.
It seems to be a grammatical error, possibly a mix-up of "acts were received" or "act was received."
Example: "The acts were received by the committee for review."
Alternatives: "actions were received" or "submissions were received."
A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said: "A request for consent to a private prosecution of Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan for offences under the Terrorism Act was received by the Crown Prosecution Service on 7 September.
No clue is given as to how a boy " off the boat in Liverpool with five bob in his pocket" (another favourite Paul Raymond saying) had the drive to acquire an estimated fortune of 650 million pounds; beyond him noting, that in his first career as a fraudulent stage-show mindreader, he realised his act was received better with a naked girl in tow.
In this respect, it calls upon the European Commission to implement 'a technical notification period' in order to grant additional time between the date on which draft legislative acts are received by NPs and the date on which the eight-week period begins.
"Acting is receiving, and singing is giving, and that is why it is so difficult".
Both positive and negative assessments of both the print-based and EMR-based interventions highlight the importance of responsiveness to practice change initiatives in shaping how intervention components were received and acted on.
The minister fails to realise that such an act will be received by many as a step towards a necessary purification of France, as carried out by her citizens.
"Knowing who the concertgoers are, whether the live acts are being received well in those markets, creates a lot of opportunities".
Despite subsequent decreases in the unit price of ACTs, the average cost of anti-malarial drugs further increased by 2008 ($0.85) because all patients were receiving ACTs by that year.
Mayor Christopher Yates said that on March 1 — almost four years after discussions began about how many affordable homes Harding Township needed to add to satisfy mandates by the state's Fair Housing Act — court approval was received on a plan to build 176 units, just over half the original requirement of 350.
The court held that since the underhanded swap meet owners had the right and ability to control their vendor's acts, and since the operators were receiving a direct financial benefit from the infringement, the operators were liable for vicarious infringement.
