Ahmad told kashaf that he would hire him on an architectural job. He gave him a date

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Ahmad told kashaf that he would hire him on an architectural job. He gave him a date to show up for work and told him to leave his present job. Relying on Ahmad’s statements, Kashaf left his job. Ahmad never did let kashaf begin work, and as a result, he was out of work for six months. Kashaf sued Ahmed for the wages he lost during those six months. Ahmad argued that since he they had never decided on the final terms of employment, no contract ever existed between two of them. Kashaf argued that the principal of promissory Estoppel should apply here.

Is kashaf correct? Explain John purchased writing table from Furniture company.

The writing table arrived at john home in a damaged condition. The company agreed to repair it if John agreed not to sue. John agreed, but then later brought suit. The owner of company argued that john could not bring suit because he had promise not to sue them in exchange for the repair of writing table. John argued that company had a preexisting duty to deliver undamaged writing table. This preexisting duty could not, therefore, be consideration in a new agreement.

Was John correct? Explain?

Aslam agreed to pay Rs.10000 to Peek in exchange for all the stocks in a corporation. The agreement was placed in writing. Nevertheless, when the time came for payment, Aslam refused to live up to his end of the deal. His argument was that the stock was not worth the Rs.10000 that he had agreed to pay for it.

Did the court listen to Aslam argument and attempt to determine the value of the consideration? Explain?

Savaretti offered to pay his niece, Wilma, $2,000 if she would agree to give up eating meat and pastries and drinking caffeinated beverages for six months. Wilma agreed and gave up these activities for six months. At the end of those six months, Savaretti refused to give Wilma the $2,000, arguing that because giving up caffeine, meat, and pastries was beneficial to her health, she suffered no detriment and was owed nothing. Wilma took Savaretti to small claims court and demanded payment of the $2,000. She argued that because she had the legal right to consume the caffeine, meat, and pastries, she suffered a legal detriment and was entitled to her money.

How should the referee rulein this case? Explain.