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 by hotvw1914cc
If e had won he should pay p. Because the lawsuit would been before e had represented any one in court.
Virago Man
Answer by open4one
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 by Rajesh Iyer
E should be punished. The punishment is E cannot take any cases for life, if he first does not settle with P.
Answer by billy d
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 by Traveller
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 by pdevans1963@rogers.com
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 by Rogue300000
`What if E hires another lawyer and that lawyer wins ?
Answer by Just Me
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 by GlobalMan
For the most part, I gotta agree with Mr. " open4one"...
I believe P loses in either verdict.
However, was the contract/agreement between them oral or written and in what state was the trial pursued?....it makes a difference....
Answer by Mikayah
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.
What do you think? Answer below!
Orignal From: what really ought the judge in this case have done?
Post a Comment