For his part, the experienced senior lawyer, who appeared for the defendant company, asked in his brief the following four questions:- The Court of Appeal argued that the termination letter ”N14” was invalid and ineffective because the proposed two-month salary had not been paid instead of the termination offers at the time of issuance of the ”N14” investment note. Accordingly, the investment coin ”N14” is exhibited in violation of section 11 of Schedule ”N17”. The complainant therefore had the right to declare that his employment was in place. In Torbett v Faulkner (1952) 2 TLR 659, it was found that when a servant has the personal privilege of living in a house for the greater comfort of his work, and is treated as part of his remuneration, he is dismissed, although the value of the house is quantified in money. . . .