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?

The student attempted to avoid paying any money by avoiding taking any cases.  The lawyer is suing him because the teacher feels the student does not have the right to avoid paying fees by this method.

If the student wins the case, he has established that he has the right to avoid paying fees by not taking cases.  However, he has now taken and won a case, and so must pay the fee.  He didn't have to take the case, but he did, so he must pay the fee.

If the teacher wins, the student did not have the right to avoid paying fees in this matter.  The student was obligated to take cases until he won.  The student has not won a case yet, so he does not yet have to pay the fee, but he must take cases until he wins one.  Eventually he will have to pay the fee.

Either way, the student will have to cough up the money.

Posted by Goat on 2004-08-23 19:22:32