legal paradox

 i read this puzzle in facebook recently . claims it still remains a paradox in legal circles. 

a law student completes his degree borrowings funds from his teacher . to be repaid once he wins a case in the court.

as is the new normal he fails to repay the loan for a long  time. teacher files a case in the court.

the teacher calculated that even if he loses the case he would get repayment from the student as he would then be winning the case. so repayment is assured in either case.

the student took the line that if the teacher loses the case he would forfeit his right to demand repayment . if the teacher wins then he loses and the repayment enabling condition remains unfulfilled . . either way no repayment.

apparently sound arguments but in diagonally opposite directions.that is the paradox.   you are asked to deliver a judgement in the case. 

there are two specific things for consideration  in this case. the loan agreement and the court case. mixing them up was probably the mistake and that is why this remains a paradox. let's consider them separately and independently .

first the court case. the teacher filed this case expecting to benefit from both the outcomes , winning or loosing . that probably is not acceptable in legal disputes. so he loses the cases and his right to receive repayment. 

take the loan agreement now . the student is bound to pay back the debt legally . the agreement clearly says that . may be the time it devolves is  a variable parameter . but that doesn't absolve him of the responsibility to pay back the debt.

so the conclusion is that the student is bound to pay the debt back to the teacher who has no right  to receive it. 

almost like our democracy . we are bound to vote for someone who doesn't deserve it .  a paradox in the real sense . and that is what caught my attention.

sorry for making you read this crap . may be once in a while anything ok . bye