Opinion ID: 521021
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Future Employment

Text: 38 We also reject the plaintiffs' argument that the district court erred when it instructed the jury that Saudi law prohibits speculation as to whether the plaintiffs would have remained in Aramco's employ for a long time. RT Vol. 8, 1468. Section 74 states that damages awards must reflect current generally accepted practice. Aramco's expert witness on Saudi law testified that Saudi practice is to limit damages to losses which are not speculative and which are foreseeable. In this respect, Saudi law does not differ from standard American contract law, which requires that damages be certain. Calamari and Perillo, Contracts 599 (1987). 39 The plaintiffs did not present any evidence suggesting that workers in their position reasonably could expect to remain with Aramco for a long time. Had Aramco not terminated the plaintiffs because of their operation of the videotape rental club, it is possible that after a few years the plaintiffs would have left Aramco for professional or personal reasons or conditions in the industry could cause reductions in the employment force.