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): it wasn't Protagoras by irene)
I think the judges were right. The claim of Protagoras (or Korax) was not complete at the time that he sued, because the student had not at that time won a case.
This would render him liable to be 'nonsuited', a course the judges could take of their own motion without either party 'winning' or 'losing', and which they clearly actually chose.
It's also a fair result. For the judges to decide in favour of Protagoras would plainly be wrong on the state of affairs then existing. On the other hand, to decide in favour of the student would itself perfect Protagoras's claim, which would be unfair to the student, who would otherwise not be liable to pay anything.
Furthermore, should the student happen to win a case at some future time, there would then be no obstacle to
Protagoras making a fresh claim based on the change in circumstances.
|
|
Posted by broll
on 2022-02-19 09:53:16 |
re(3): it wasn't Protagoras
