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?

YES!
Protagoras was sueing his student for not taking any cases, the judge would definetly throw the case out for its absurdity, you cant sue someone for not doing anything! So student would win his first case! he would still be held responsible by the contract so he would have to pay the teaching fee not the law suit.

but why wouldnt the student just take a case and purpusly lose it?!?!?

an anagram of Protagoras is 'GRASP A ROOT'

Posted by James on 2002-10-25 18:24:58