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: if I were his student by David)

I am very confused by the meaning of "first case" in this paradox.
When it says "...which states that they do not have to pay him until they have won their first case," it seems to be implying the logical meaning, being the first case the student WINS.
However, it then says "If the student loses their first case, then they don't have to pay Protagoras at all." Here it seems to say that the payment is all dependant on the first case he TRIES.
If it is dependant on the first tried case, the student should have just gone to court and lost a cose before the teacher felt the need to sue him. Then again, if it got to the point of suing, he should not have represented himself.

Posted by michelle on 2003-11-11 18:41:20