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?

I think the more intersting paradox here is that if Protagoras sues the student, what could he sue him for, he would have to give an amount up front, so if the judge agrees in his favour, then as was stated in the solution there is no fee. So the amount Protagoras sued for could not be given to him as a result of this clause, but if he recieves no money then the student has in fact won, as the result of sueing or libel is a cash settlement. So if this occurs then there could have been no completion of the said case, as it has not reached conclusion. So the student will not have won or lost the case, and would have successfully undertaken his first case. The contract (as in the question) does not account for this and is therefore void.

Posted by loki on 2004-06-09 09:49:47