400 thousand riyals as compensation for a company that did not benefit from the leased property

The civil judiciary ruled in a lawsuit compensating an appellant company that did not benefit from the leased property and did not benefit from it, and this compensation amounted to 400 thousand riyals according to the ruling of the Court of Appeal. The facts indicate that the Appellant filed a civil suit against the Respondent, requesting compensation on the basis of a deed that she had previously authorized him in a lawsuit for termination of a lease contract filed against her and gave him rent checks to be delivered to the lessor and replaced by checks previously received by the lessor, but he did not do what resulted in the termination of the lease contract and her non-use of the leased property. The Respondent filed a request to compel the Appellant to pay an amount in addition to the compensation, and the Court of First Instance ruled to reject the original case, and the Court upheld the appealed judgment, and omitted to decide on the appeal. In the original case, obliging the respondent to pay the appellant an amount of 400,000 riyals, and obliging the appellant to pay the respondent an amount of 95,000 riyals. For the material and moral damages incurred, and that this amount is not at all commensurate with the value of the damage suffered by the appellant and the losses incurred in the millions, which is defective and requires cassation. The appealed judgment had indicated the elements of damage and the amount of compensation for those elements, with justifiable reasons and disciplined criteria. The fact in the lawsuit was that the contract concluded between the appellant and the respondent was to be for a period of one Gregorian year and to be renewed automatically unless one of them notified the other at least two months before the end of the period of his unwillingness to renew, and one of the terms of the contract determined the value of the fees to be paid in advance. The appellant had canceled the power of attorney and submitted proof of payment of the fees by checks signed by the respondent to receive them, and that she had fulfilled her obligations, but the contested judgment obligated the appellant to pay the adjudged amount as attorney’s fees, and without relying on any other basis, it would have violated the established With the papers that dragged him to the error in the application of the law.