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 re(2): Solution by TomM)

But what if the inital trial is separate from whatever legal action the student later takes to retreive the fee? The problem only becomes a paradox if forced on the judge in its entirety. It would be wise for the student to not bring up the discrepancy between having to pay the fee and losing the first case until the case is closed.

At that point, the student can safely sue to get his money back.

Posted by levik on 2002-10-20 04:56:57