A Lawyer named Protagoras teaches law for a hefty fee. He advertises his skills as a teacher by offering his students a contract, which states that they do not have to pay him until they have won their first case. If the student loses their first case, then they don't have to pay Protagoras at all.

One student of Protagoras sees a loophole, takes the course and fininshes it. After that, the student avoids arguing any cases. Since the student has not yet won his first case, he avoids paying Protagoras.

Protagoras feels cheated, and sues the student for his fee. When the case comes to trial, the student represents himself. If the student loses the case, then by the terms of their original agreement, there is no fee for the course. If the student wins the case however, then, since its the student's first case, there will be a fee. (But, of course, winning the case means that the student doesn't have to pay the fee, while losing it means that the fee must be paid.)

Will the student be obliged to pay Protagoras' fee or not?

(In reply to Solution by friedlinguini)

I'm wondering if the student could perhaps lose the case, and then instead of paying the required fee, just sue Protagoras back. Even though he lost the case, because he lost it he is not required to pay the fee. He can win the second case to get the fee back, (he shouldn't have paid it considering he lost his first case). Winning the second case will get him his money back, and since he need only pay Protagoras if he wins the first case, he will be off free and clear.

Flaws?

Posted by levik on 2002-10-19 19:43:24