Long ago in ancient Greece, lawyers (to speak slightly anachronistically) learned their trade by paying an established lawyer to apprentice. Protagoras was one such lawyer who got very wealthy plying his trade. As such, he was also very much in demand as a teacher. Euathlus contracted with Protagoras to become his pupil. They agreed that Protagoras, however, would only be paid once Euathlus won his first case — as then clearly the training had proved of use.
Some time later, Protagoras noticed that Euathlus had not yet taken a case. He was determined to collect his teaching fee, and sued Euathlus to collect. He presented his case as follows. If Euathlus loses, he will hence have to pay Protagoras, because Protagoras will have won the case to collect. If, on the other hand, Euathlus wins, he will have won his first case and hence will have to pay Protagoras by the terms of the original contract.
Euathlus , for his part, argued as follows. If he wins, he will not have to pay, because Protagoras will have lost his suit to be paid. If, however, Eualthus loses, he will not have to pay, because the original contract was that he would only pay his fee once he won a case, and he will still have yet to win one.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to resolve Protagoras’ lawsuit. Fields that might be interesting to explore concerning this conundrum: multivalued logics, contract law.
(In my Greek Phil class a couple of years ago, we had an assignment that asked the same question. This is an abbreviated, less formal version of my submission. It got a good mark ;-))
First, we need to be clear on the grounds of Protagoras’s suit. I think it only makes sense if we see this as a breach of contract case: Protagoras is alleging that there was an understanding that Euathlus would take up legal practice and represent clients, which he hasn’t done, so now Protagoras wants damages in the amount of the tuition fee.
Second, winning/losing isn’t really an atomic event: Both then and now, courts first make a finding of legal fact, then (if appropriate) decide on the consequences. (For a contemporary example, see the _Apology_, in which Socrates is first convicted, then condemned, in two separate votes of the court).
Assuming the above, Protagoras wins. If the court rules that Euathlus is breach, then he owes the money. It doesn’t matter that he has not won his first case, since he can’t very well hide behind the terms of a contract that he has broken. OTOH, if the court rules that Euathlus is not in breach (say, because they feel that the obligation to go into practice was not explicit enough, or that his appearance in this case fulfills that obligation) then he has won on the legal question, and now owes the money by the terms of the contract.