Hello everyone. Here is some food for thought as the week draws to a close. Suppose you are the judge presiding over a trial. The case is Dr. Andrews versus George. Dr. Andrews teaches at a law school. George wants to enroll at this school, but he cannot afford the tuition.
Dr. Andrews hears of George's plight and offers George a deal. He will teach George for free. When George completes his studies, he will pay tuition to Dr. Andrews only if he wins his first case. If George loses his first case, his education will have been for free.
After completing his studies, George decides to sue Dr. Andrews for free tuition. George argues that no matter how the case turns out, he will not have to pay tuition to Dr. Andrews. If George wins the suit, he gets free tuition. If George loses, he will not have to pay tuition because of the deal he made with Dr. Andrews.
Dr. Andrews sees things differently. If George sues him he will have to pay tuition whether he wins or loses. If George wins his first case, then their contract compels George to pay. If George loses, then he has lost the suit to be awarded free tuition and so the court will compel George to pay.
Who do you think has the stronger case? Explain your reasoning.