The Biggest Paradox!

August 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm 3 comments

Few centuries 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 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 paradoxes ever recorded in history.

Any suggestions from your side?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/memory/improve/

Advertisements

Entry filed under: info. Tags: , .

Virusingh! Apple crunch

3 Comments Add your own

  • 1. nadia  |  August 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    Ohho, I have to think?

    ~ Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

    Reply
  • 2. Amir  |  August 19, 2008 at 7:58 am

    Hmmm. This is interesting, but I believe that the court of law once ruled upon irradicates or strengthens any verbal or written contract which is being argued.

    Scenario one:
    The court says the teacher should be paid, even though the contract terms were not met, therefore the contract is invalidated, student must pay teacher on the grounds of the ruling.

    Scenario two:
    The court says, no, the teacher should not be paid because the terms of the contract have not been met. This validates the contract and makes it binding. Student wins, there’s a binding contract, student must NOW pay the teacher, since the ruling is moments before his victory.

    What do you think?

    ~ That sounds paradoxically obscure 😉

    Reply
  • 3. nadia  |  August 19, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    I actually think Amir’s scenario number two makes sense.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


House in Paradise!

Narrated AbuUmamah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: I guarantee a house in the surroundings of Paradise for a man who avoids quarrelling even if he were in the right, a house in the middle of Paradise for a man who avoids lying even if he were joking, and a house in the upper part of Paradise for a man who made his character good.(Sunan Abu Dawood,Book 41, Number 4782)

IndiRanking

masoodmemon.wordpress.com
60/100

Nokia Blog Award!

Archives

Visitors

  • 479,778 since July 8 '08

Visitors!

Recent Readers

View My Profile View My Profile View My Profile View My Profile View My Profile

%d bloggers like this: