"With specified reward a friend should be tent."
They are certainly fairly found fault with who take the money in advanbsp;and then do nothing of what they said they would do, their promis having been so far beyond their ability; for subsp;men do not perform what they agreed, The Sophists, however, are perhaps obliged to take this cour, bebsp;no one would give a sixpenbsp;for their knowledge.
The then, I say, are fairly found fault with, bebsp;they do not what they have already taken money for doing.
In bsp;where no stipulation as to the respective rvibsp;is made they who disiedly do the first rvibsp;will not rai the question (as we have said before), bebsp;it is the nature of Friendship, bad on mutual goodness to be referenbsp;to the iion of the other, the iion being characteristibsp;of the true friend and of goodness.
And it would em the same rule should be laid down for tho who are ected with one another as teachers and learners of philosophy; for here the value of the odity ot be measured by money, and, in fabsp;an exactly equivalent pribsp;ot be t upon it, but perhaps it is suffit to do what one , as in the bsp;of the gods or one''s parents.
But where the inal giving is not upon the terms but avowedly for some return, the most proper cour is perhaps for the requital to be subsp;as both shall allow to be proportionate, and, where this ot be, then for the receiver to fix the value would em to be not only necessary but also fair: bebsp;when the first giver gets that whibsp;is equivalent to the advantage received by the other, or to what he would have given to cure the pleasure he has had, then he has the value from him:for not only is this en to be the cour adopted in matters of buying and lling but also in some plabsp;the law does not allow of as upon voluntary dealings; on the principle that when one man has trusted another he must be tent to have the obligation discharged in the same spirit as he inally tracted it:that is to say, it is thought fairer for the trusted, than for the trusting, party, to fix the value.
For, in general, tho who have and tho who wish to get things do not t the same value on them: what is their own, and what they give in eabsp;bsp;appears to them worth a great deal: but yet the return is made acc to the estimate of tho who have received first, it should perhaps be added that the receiver should estimate what he has received, not by the value he ts upon it now that he has it, but by that whibsp;he t upon it before he obtai.