Consider the well-known story of Euathlus and Protagoras. Euathlus wanted to become a lawyer but could not pay Protagoras. Protagoras agreed to teach him law and rhetoric under the condition that, as soon as Euathlus won his first case, he would pay Protagoras. Euathlus agreed and finished his course of study but, having done so, decided to pursue a career in politics instead. Protagoras got tired of waiting for his fee and sued Euathlus for it. 

Protagoras argued:

If Euathlus loses this case, then he must pay me (by the judgment of the court).
If Euathlus wins this case, then he must pay me (by the terms of the contract).
He must either win or lose this case.
Therefore Euathlus must pay me.

But Euathlus had learned well the art of rhetoric. He responded:

If I win this case, I do not have to pay (by the judgment of the court).
If I lose this case, I do not have to pay (by the terms of the contract).
I must either win or lose the case.
Therefore, I do not have to pay Protagoras.

So who wins? And why?

Here are some representative replies to the conundrum which I wanted to publish:

From Mark Young in Canada:

comments: Sorry to hear about your crash -- fortunately, it's rare for anything shared between computers to be completely lost.  Here's the response I submitted earlier....m

Protagoras should get paid -- but not yet! 

Protagoras is asking for immediate payment.  So the question the judge must answer is:  What does Euathlus owe Protagoras *now*? 

Well, as of the time when Protagoras files and argues his case, Euathlus has not won a case, and so his payment is not yet due.  Euathlus has not violated the contract, and so Protagoras' case gets dismissed by the first judge. 

But now Protagoras may go to Euathlus and demand payment.  If Euathlus refuses, Protagoras can sue *again* (this is not a case of double jeopardy), and this time his case is sound.  Euathlus *has* won a case now, and so his refusal to pay is a violation of the contract.  The second judge should find for the plaintiff and order Euathlus to pay. 

But what if the first judge makes a mistake? 

If the first judge says "Euathlus must pay the fee now" and Euathlus does not pay, then Protagoras is no worse off than he was.  He can sue again -- and the new judge's reasoning *should* be as the first one's was above:  Euathlus hasn't won a case yet, so he doesn't have to pay.  But eo ipso he has won a case, and so Protagoras may demand payment. 

But Protagoras may have trouble if the *second* judge got it wrong. 

If the second judge finds for Euathlus, then Euathlus has won *again* -- but in much the same way as he won his first case.  Whatever (faulty!) reasoning the judge used for dismissing Protagoras' second case now acts as a *precedent* for dismissing any future cases Protagoras brings.  Protagoras' only option would be to *appeal* the second judgement and hope that the appellate court *overturns* the second judge's ruling. 

Euathlus may have learned the art of rhetoric, but he should still recall that a lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client.  He should have hired representation.  Then the victory would have gone to his lawyer, and Protagoras would have no basis for a second suit. 

From Troy Williamson in the USA:

comments: It does seem like a clear-cut dilemma ... but surely there is a solution to this.  So I propose the following.  Euathlus realizes that only a fool would represent himself in a court of law.  (That was not a recognized principle in ancient Greece, but we're resolving the dilemma today!)  Therefore, Euathlus should not represent himself.

With this provision in place, then the terms of the contract are "set aside" in order to resolve the dilemma.  That is, the contract is not that Euathlus must pay for his training the first time he is sued and emerges the victor.  The point of the contract was that Euathlus would pay for his training the first time he wins a case as a practicing lawyer.  By hiring someone to defend him in this case, Euathlus is still not practicing as a lawyer, thus resolving the dilemma.

Okay ... slightly outside the box ... lol.

From Cody:

comments: Speaking from a legal standpoint, whatever the judge rules is going to be the final word, regardless of what the contract said.  So it's only a matter of the ruling.

If I were the judge, I would rule in favor of Euathlus.  The agreement was that Euathlus would pay WHEN he won his first case.  Protagoras does not have a basis for suing Euathlus at this point.

A parallel argument would be between Jim and Bob.  Jim performs some service and they agree that Bob will pay after January 1, 2020.  Jim gets impatient though, and sues Bob for the money in 2007.  There is no grounds for the litigation because, in reality, no contract has been violated.  Either Bob would win this case, or the case would be thrown out entirely.

If Euathlus had won a case and refused to pay, then Protagoras would have a legal standing.

As it stands, though, Euathlus will win this case.  This would logically mean that, after winning the case, Euathlus would have to pay Protagoras UNLESS the judge made a ruling negating the contract.

From Lauri Kultti in Finland:

comments: I think my idea in the earlier response was that Protagoras should not be much concerned about the judgment of the court: the courts do not usually make their judgments on the basis of logic (alone). The spirit of Protagoras' and Euathlus' contract is quite clear and court would certainly judge against Euathlus.

On the other side, if Protagoras were eager enough to keep his reputation (as a master of logic and rhetoric) as high as earlier maybe, first, he should have sued Euathlus for some totally different minor case!!

Again, good Zeno's patrons....thank you!!!