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: it wasn't Protagoras by levik)

oooook. Tomorrow or the day after (depends when I log in again) I'll also tell you which author "reports" this anecdote.

Well supposedly, after the finish of the young man's tutoring, he didn't go to any trial. I must remind here that in Ancient Greece people where NOT represented by lawyers in court. They delivered their speeches themselves. What they COULD do, was to go to a "logografos" which meand a writer of speeches, have their defense or accusatory speech (again I don't know the term) writen and lern it by heart. Tisisa (the student) didn't do either. So, Korax (the prof) stupidly enough took accused him in the court of law.

Korax said to the judges :" Sirs, in any case Tisias has to pay me. If he wins this trial, he eill have won his first ttial and, according to our agreement he must pay.If, on the other hand, he loses then, since I will have won this trial in which I demand to be payed he will be induced by the court to pay also"

Tisias then took the stand (which then actually meant he stood in front of the judges lol) and said:
"Sirs, don't listen to him. The fact is that in either case I should NOT pay him. If I win I won't have to pay since the court will have judged that I don't owe him money. If I lose, then according to the agreement, I will have lost my first trial and therefore won't be obliged to pay"

The anecdote ends by stating that after deliberation the jusges threw them out.

As I see it we must firstly see whether the court order is more important that the deal. If so, and IF the judges decide that Tisias din't act in good faith when he enterd the agreement then he'll have to pay.

If they don't see it this way, they may say (no law on that specific subject remember that!) that Tisias had every right to choose when to take part in a trial

Posted by irene on 2002-11-04 11:23:53