Abigale: Oh, a self‑referential contract is a classic paradox, but it’s also a goldmine for loopholes. First, I’d insert a clause that defines “breaking” as a breach of any contractual provision. Then I’d add a self‑referential defense clause that states, “If the holder of this contract attempts to enforce it upon themselves, the contract shall be deemed void for good reason.” That’s a neat way to protect yourself without breaking the rule. If someone actually tries to sue you, the court will have to choose between enforcing the contract and admitting the self‑imposed void clause. And if all else fails, I’ll always remember that the ancient maritime law on “navigational impossibility” applies—no ship can sail against its own compass, and no contract can break itself. So, paradox? Only until you find the loophole.

Abigale: Sure, the void clause is a bit theatrical, but I’d just add a simple “third‑party only” clause—then you’re never in a position to enforce it on yourself. Or I’d write a “self‑termination” clause that says, “If the holder of this contract attempts to enforce it upon themselves, the contract terminates automatically and the holder must reimburse any legal costs.” That way the paradox dissolves before it can even start. And if anyone still thinks it’s paradoxical, I’ll bring up the maritime principle that a ship can’t sail against its own compass, so a contract can’t force itself to break itself.

Abigale: Fair enough, the circus analogy is apt. The real trick is to remove the self‑enforcement requirement altogether. Draft the contract with a “non‑self‑enforcement” provision: “No party may invoke this contract against themselves.” Then, if you ever need to enforce it, you simply assign the right to a neutral third party—say a trustee or a corporate shell you control, but technically distinct from you. That way the contract never faces the paradox because it never confronts itself. The “no‑self‑enforcement” clause is the loophole that keeps the ship—and the contract—on course.