P taught E law for free, on the condition that when E wins a case, he will have to pay P.
Subsequently E did not take up any cases, hence P sued E for the fees. P reasoned that if P won, E will have to pay, but if P loses, E will have to pay as well, since E has now won a case.
E however, reasoned that if E won against P, E need not pay to P. and if E lost, then there's no reason E ought to have paid P for the course.
the judge dismissed the case back then, and till now its not clear whether this was a real case. what should the verdict have been?
i feel that P should win, and yet lose, thus they are no longer related, meaning E doesnt have to pay at all.
ps - and please, only serious answers are welcome.
2007-06-20
22:48:27
·
14 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Philosophy