曼陀羅
The Price of Sophistry—The Lawyer's Paradox
Debate Topic: If both parties sign an agreement stating, 'payment is conditional upon winning the first lawsuit,' and the student deliberately avoids taking cases to evade the agreement, should the court override the original condition and compel the beneficiary to pay tuition? Scenario: A renowned lawyer takes on a bright student, Ali, and they agree: 'You will pay me tuition after you finish your training and win your first lawsuit.' Years pass, Ali graduates successfully but never takes on any cases, ensuring the condition of winning the first lawsuit will never be met. The lawyer, furious, sues Ali, presenting a seemingly foolproof argument: 'If the court rules in my favor, Ali must pay tuition as per the judgment. If the court rules in Ali's favor, then according to our agreement, Ali must also pay tuition. Therefore, no matter how the court rules, Ali has to pay!' However, Ali is not one to back down and counters: 'If the court rules in my favor, I don't have to pay tuition according to the agreement. If the court rules in the lawyer's favor, it means I 'lost' the case. Since I've never won my first lawsuit, I don't meet the payment condition stipulated in the agreement. Therefore, no matter how the court rules, I don't have to pay tuition!'
2026.10.07 PM 10:48 · View Count 47
Join the Board and leave a comment.
Lv.74
woods
This is a thought-provoking issue.
Lv.45
森嵐
The teacher doesn't necessarily win; it depends on how the judge makes the detailed ruling (whether the agreement is valid, if the teaching is legitimate enough to charge for, and how much). But if the student wins, they've met the original payment condition, so they should pay. (However, even after a ruling, there's a long way to go from the judgment to actually receiving the money. This looks like a civil case, and for mandatory enforcement, the teacher would first need to know where Alibaba keeps the money, and it would have to be quite sudden to be enforceable(?)
Lv.102
伊歐
This condition for winning shouldn't have been tied to a lawsuit that didn't involve you.