1) A court demands a particular building for Mr X be erected but the condition is that Mr Y must do the foundations for it to be legal
2) Mr Y doesn’t want to do it.
3) By law, Mr X can demand Mr Y do it if he proves that the building will be legal
4) Mr X argues it will be legal because the court said it would be provided foundations are done by Mr Y
5) Mr Y has a right to refuse if there is a valid reason, and he argues that the building is not legal until he does the foundations, therefore in him choosing not to do the foundations it means he is refusing to contribute to something that is not yet legal, which is a valid reason to refuse.
- No new information is to be added other than what’s here. This is not a brain teaser, I just want a legal or philosophical response to see if you can come up with reasons why both, one or neither have the possibility of getting their way.
- hace 1 mes
#5 is incorrect. He is building a legal foundation. His refusal based on future (potential) illegal activity is invalid. This happens all the time. No building would exist if this logic were applied, since NO building is legal (or at least safe) without a legal (safe) foundation.