Discussion Board topic: The ancient Philosopher and Lawyer Protagorus agreed to teach one of his students a course in Legal Studies for a fee which ,by contract, was to be payed by the student to Protagorus as soon as the student won his first law-suit. The student took the course but never took-on a law-suit and never payed Protagorus. Protagorus then felt cheated and sued the student in court for payment of the fee. Protagorus reasoned that, if he(Protagorus) won the law-suit, the student would be mandated to pay him his fee. However if Protagorus lost the law-suit, the student would STILL be obliged to pay the fee since he (the student) would have won his first law-suit and would be contractually required to pay. But the student reasoned that, if Protagorus won the suit, then he (the student)would NOT be required to pay the fee because he would not have won his first law suit--and if Protagorus lost the suit, the student would not have to pay because the court said so. ....Which one is right, and why? Is this an ethical issue, a legal issue or a strictly logical issue?