what really ought the judge in this case have done?

Question

P taught E law for free, on the condition that when E wins a case, he will have to pay P.
Subsequently E did not take up any cases, hence P sued E for the fees. P reasoned that if P won, E will have to pay, but if P loses, E will have to pay as well, since E has now won a case.
E however, reasoned that if E won against P, E need not pay to P. and if E lost, then there's no reason E ought to have paid P for the course.

the judge dismissed the case back then, and till now its not clear whether this was a real case. what should the verdict have been?

i feel that P should win, and yet lose, thus they are no longer related, meaning E doesnt have to pay at all.

ps - and please, only serious answers are welcome.

Answer 1

E will throughout life remain under obligation to pay Morally and ethically.

But as per clause he need not pay untill he takes up a case and win it too.

And P cannot force upon Him.

Under the clause it was not made mandatory for E to take cases.

reading between the lines E will Pay IF and only if he takes case and wins too.

Hope that helps!
Cheers!

Answer 2

The jugde is right to have dismissed the case. E paying P on winning any case was speculative {in the end E took no cases.} P was being frivolous.

It is not possible for P to force E, to take cases, hence by law P's speculation failed {as an aside cases are generally won by astute perception thus if P failed to perceive E's reluctance to take cases, it calls for a serious lack of judgement.}

The speculative nature of the issue at hand becomes more glaring as P lost a case which speculatively he would have won whether E, won or lost.

P then appears to be a failed teacher.

I trust you understand P is the case study here as he entered a suit against E, and was the same person who taught E, and had his first real matter{there's a differnce between the classroom and actual operations,} dismissed as frivolous.

Answer 3

We cannot tell what the verdict should have been, because of the lack of evidence and details, however we can reason the outcome of each person winning the case.. If P had won the case, then E would in fact owe P the amount agreed on in the judgement. However if E won, then he would be responsible for the amount agreed on in the agreement between him and P, so no matter what, E will be out of pocket.

Answer 4

P loses.

Conditioning payment upon "winning a case" presumes being paid for winning that case.

Even when P's suit is dismissed for being premature, E will still not have won a case, as he was the Defendant, not acting as an attorney for someone else for pay.

P probably sucked as a teacher since that wasn't obvious to him.

Answer 5

In such cases I think that the "contract is the judge":
P taught E law for free , when E wins a case he should pay P the fees.
so when P wins E shouldn't pay any fee..
but if P loses E have to pay according to the contract

Answer 6

any lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. Therefore E should not have been working this case. He still would not have collected any fees to pay P. P is suing for a piece of nothing.

Unless P did not teach E that he shouldnt represent himself, in which case his teaching probably was suspect and therefore worthless to begin with.

Answer 7

The elders do no longer choose your salvation... this is between you and Jehovah. you recognize that. once you're a Christian and you prepare immorality and you're caught, the elders will sit down and communicate with you. in case you nonetheless prepare the immoral action without repentance, then you would be disfellowshipped. This on no account reflects on your salvation. Like I suggested, this is between you and God. The elders interior the congregation do have a God given duty. once you initiate coaching issues that are no longer based on the Bible, such as you have, then you would be disfellowshipped for coaching fake teachings. returned, the elders are no longer judging your salvation. they are keeping the congregation secure from fake teachings. you recognize all this and you nonetheless falsely accuse the elders of injustice.... wow.

Answer 8

E will have to pay only if he loses this particular case not otherwise. This is a specific case arising on a specific cause of action and if E loses the case, he will have no go but to pay up.

Answer 9

E wins. E did not take the case. P forced it upon E.

Answer 10

If e had won he should pay p. Because the lawsuit would been before e had represented any one in court.

Virago Man