The Law Paradox - My Analysis:-)

The paradox given below is probably one of the greatest paradoxes, but I feel it has obvious flaws when seen in the light of real world. I know it is not meant to be taken seriously, but if ever such paradox occurs in real world it will not stand in any court of law!! My argument is given below the paradox:-)

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 wasfinished 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, the student 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."

My arguments as a "public proescuter" are:
-------------------------------------------
There is a solution to this case. The argument of the student in court is proof enough that he acknowledges existence of the promise that he would pay up if he wins the case (which would be his first one). Now, as per law of any land justice is based on validity of facts (which the student has already accepted) and if prima facie the mutually agreed understanding between sparring parties are violated by one of the plaintiffs. In this case fact and the judge can give a decision in favor of the teacher provided the teacher manages to loose the case somehow. No matter if the student wins judge can always justify his decision due to the fact that the student has promised to pay of he wins. The student has a chance of winning only if he denies making such a promise to the teacher, however in that case the teacher only has to prove that he taught the student and so deserves compensation..