Who wins?

Quote:
Many years ago, a Law teacher came across a student who was willing to learn but was unable to pay the fees. The student struck a deal saying, "I will pay your fee the day I win my first case in the court".

Teacher agreed and proceeded with the law course. When the course was finished and teacher started pestering the student to pay up the fee, the student reminded him of the deal and pushed days. Fed up with this, the teacher decided to sue the student in the court of law and both of them decided to argue for themselves.

The teacher put forward his argument saying: "If I win this case, as per the court of law, the student has to pay me as the case is about his non-payment of dues. And if I lose the case, student will still pay me because he would have won his first case. So either way I will have to get the money".

Equally brilliant, the student argued back saying: "If I win the case, as per the court of law, I don't have to pay anything to the teacher as the case is about my non-payment of dues. And if I lose the case, I don't have to pay him because I haven't won my first case yet. So either way, I am not going to pay the teacher anything". This is one of the greatest paradoxe ' s ever recorded in history.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
If the student wins, he is obligated under the original agreement to pay the teacher, however, that agreement is overturned by the subsequent lawsuit that he has won, therefore the student is off the hook.

If the teacher wins, the student is not obligated under the original agreement to pay the teacher, however, that agreement is overturned by the subsequent lawsuit that the teacher has won, therefore the student must pay.

Ok, what are you saying then, except what has already been argued in Rico's posting?

And as I understand it, the general obligation of the student to pay the course he attended is not even a matter of debate amongst the parties.

The only aspect that opposing claims are made about is the moment the agreed upon payment is due.

So the teacher does not gain anything by winning the case, because he merely gets the court to grant him a claim the student didn't even deny to begin with, as the ruling for the student to pay can exist next to the original agreement reagrding the moment the debt is due, i.e. when the student wins his first case. The teachers argument is flawed as he is suing for a payment before the actually agreed upon moment of due balance is reached.