A Law teacher once came across a student who was willing to learn but was unable to pay the fee. The student struck a deal saying, "I would pay your fee the day I win my first case in the court". Teacher agreed and proceeded with the law course. When the course was finished and the teacher started pestering the student to pay up the fee,the student reminded the deal and pushed forward the days. Fed up with this, the teacher decided to sue the student in the court of law and both of them decided to argue for themselves. The teacher put forward his argument saying: "If I win this case, as per the court of law, the student has to pay me. And if I lose the case, thestudent will still have to pay me because he would have won his first case. So either way I will have to get the money." Equally brilliant, the student argued back saying: "If I win the case, as per the court of law, I don't have to pay anything to the teacher. And if I lose the case, I don't have to pay him because I haven't won my first case yet. So either way, I am not going to pay the teacher anything." So guys,..... wat do u think? Who is correct? the teacher or the student?
Morally the student is trying to act smart - bcoz hes now only concerned about not paying the teacher **as per the court of law** -if he wins. While he had himself given a word to pay when he wins his 1st case!! The teacher is correct both lawfully and morally. ORDER ORDER ... tammam sabooot aur gawaho ko madde-nazar rakhte hue adalat is natije par pahunchi hai ki: The teacher is correct --the student is trying to act ismart
