Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Euathlus must pay Protagoras the rest of the fees regardless of the court's verdict.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A contract requiring payment contingent on winning a case is void if a court of law adjudicates that no payment is owed, since judicial authority supersedes private agreements in matters brought before it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Protagoras chose to submit the dispute to legal adjudication, thereby consenting to be bound by the court's verdict as the authoritative resolution of the contractual obligation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.One cannot simultaneously invoke a court's authority to enforce a claim and deny that court's power to rule against that same claim — doing so violates the principle of estoppel recognized from Roman law through Grotius.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The supporting argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma by ignoring a third outcome: the court may dismiss the case entirely or declare the contract unenforceable, yielding no payment obligation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aulus Gellius, who preserves this paradox in Noctes Atticae, treats it as a genuine antinomy precisely because neither horn of the dilemma yields a determinate legal obligation, suggesting the contract is indeterminate rather than doubly binding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An obligation that is allegedly enforced by contradictory grounds simultaneously — verdict and pre-verdict agreement — produces a legal nullity, as Leibniz argued in his early jurisprudential work on the logic of conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If Euathlus loses the case, he must pay the rest of the fee on account of the verdict of the judges.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Euathlus wins the case, he must pay the rest of the fee on account of his prior agreement with Protagoras.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The outcome of the case is either that Euathlus loses or that Euathlus wins.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.