Problem 3
All rise for the Lord Chief Justice.
Protagoras has been teaching Euathlos how to be a lawyer, but the latter doesn’t have to pay any tuition fees until and unless he wins his first court case. But instead of going off and practising law, Euathlos becomes a musician. Protagoras decides to sue. If he wins, he’ll be awarded the tuition fee; if he loses, he’ll still be awarded the fee because Euathlos will’ve won his first case and still has to pay. (Protagoras seems to have forgotten that someone else might defend Euathlos.)
Euathlos thinks that if he loses the case, he’s not going to have to pay; but if he wins the case, the contract will effectively be nullified – and he still won’t have to pay.
And what does the Lord Chief Justice, Uncle Angel, have to say?
I think Protagoras has hoisted himself by his own petard. In his contract, he needs to have added at least two clauses, one stating that Euathlos must pursue a career in law and is not permitted to undertake any other form of employment, and the other stating that Euathlos’ first case cannot be against Protagoras or his family or any employees. Thus, I’d fine him 50 drachmas for being a rubbish lawyer. However, I would order Euathlos to pay half the tuition fee or 50 drachmas (whichever is the lesser amount) in recognition that Protagoras has spent time teaching Euathlos about the law.
Although both arguments are valid, Protagoras as the originator of the contract does, in my mind, bear greater responsibility for the resulting paradox and perhaps needs to be referred to the Bar Council.
Euathlos thinks that if he loses the case, he’s not going to have to pay; but if he wins the case, the contract will effectively be nullified – and he still won’t have to pay.
And what does the Lord Chief Justice, Uncle Angel, have to say?
I think Protagoras has hoisted himself by his own petard. In his contract, he needs to have added at least two clauses, one stating that Euathlos must pursue a career in law and is not permitted to undertake any other form of employment, and the other stating that Euathlos’ first case cannot be against Protagoras or his family or any employees. Thus, I’d fine him 50 drachmas for being a rubbish lawyer. However, I would order Euathlos to pay half the tuition fee or 50 drachmas (whichever is the lesser amount) in recognition that Protagoras has spent time teaching Euathlos about the law.
Although both arguments are valid, Protagoras as the originator of the contract does, in my mind, bear greater responsibility for the resulting paradox and perhaps needs to be referred to the Bar Council.
Another legal case tomorrow in Hairdressers of the Hindu Kush.
Comments