Lawyer Paradox

[Rigaudon 0]

Ascribed to the sophist philosopher Protagoras (c.490-420 BC).
A lawyer teaches law to a student without fee on condition that the student will pay him when he qualifies and wins his first case.

However, when the student qualifies he takes up another profession. The lawyer sues him for his fees, on the grounds that if he wins, he is paid and if he loses, the student has won and so must pay by the agreement.

The student is unperturbed because if he wins he need not pay the fees, and if he loses he does not owe them.

I found this and thought this was interesting. What do you think our current system would have to say about this?

[web_designer 7]

well, it is kind of confusing idea. but i found it very intelligence from the lawyer, because he will be paid no matter what. also, that's a kind of free advertising to the lawyer. this way, he will get a lot of students who want to learn for free, and he will get paid in all cases.

[truefusion 3]

The case will either be dismissed or end up as a draw (which is probably why it would be dismissed). The reason for it is do to the agreement. Both the lawyer and the student must confess that there was an agreement and state or confirm the requirements of the agreement. The lawyer will obviously state that there was an agreement and the requirements of the agreement. And the story implies that the student will be willing to confirm the requirements and that there was an agreement, since the student believes it will end up as a win-win scenario for the student. After this, where then does the case go off to? Nowhere, for there is nothing else to be said, hence either a draw or dismissed—neither of which proves a winner or a loser. Saying "well, the lawyer didn't get anything out of it, so he lost, therefore the student has to pay," or, "well, the student didn't lose, so that means he won, so the student has to pay," is irrelevant since there is a middle position to this.

[ritu 1]

Very interesting indeed! hope to see more of such quotes