Julia's problem

Chris has learned from Julia how to be a lawyer, under a very generous arrangement whereby he doesn’t need to pay anything for his tuition until and unless he wins his first court case. Rather to Julia's annoyance, however, after giving up hours of her time training Chris, the pupil decides to become a musician and never takes any court cases.

Julia demands that Chris pay her for her trouble and, when the musician refuses, decides to sue him in court. Julia reasons that if Chris loses the case, he, Julia, will have won, in which case she will get her money back, and furthermore, that even if she loses, Chris will then have won a case, despite his protestations about being a musician now, and will therefore still have to pay up.

Chris reasons a little differently however. If I lose, he thinks, then I will have lost my first court case, in which event, the original agreement releases me from having to pay any tuition fees. And, even if he wins, Julia will still have lost the right to enforce the contract, so he will not need to pay anything.

They can’t both be right. So who’s making the mistake?


The paradox arises from the fact that the provisions of the agreement and the court are in every case contrary. The resolution of this situation depends on what is considered to be more important - judgement of the court or a civil contract. Julia and Chris, they both commit the same mistake - an error of inconsistency. Their position can be summarized : "If the sentence of the court is beneficial for me I will respect it, otherwise I will refer to the contract."


Paradox of the Court