He knew that sales are constantly taking place in the city and passed a law, which everyone admits to be just, stating that any offences or crimes committed by a slave shall be the responsibility of the master who owns him at the time. This law, which does not seem to be mentioned elsewhere, is not strictly applicable here, since the plaintiff had agreed in his contract to assume responsibility for Midas’s debts. However, it was a fair law, and if Athenogenes had not intended to take advantage of the plaintiff he would have been willing to observe it. ζημίαν ἐργάζεσθαι , which appears to be an old legal phrase, is variously understood. Other interpretations than that adopted in the translation are: (1) to incur loss, (2) to incur a fine. This is only fair; for if a slave gains any success or brings in earnings, his owner enjoys the benefits. But you ignore the law and talk about agreements being broken. Solon did not consider that a decree, even when constitutionally proposed, should override the law. This provision of Solon is mentioned by Andoc. 1.87 and by Dem. 23.87 . Yet you maintain that even unjust agreements take precedence over all the laws. Besides this, gentlemen of the jury, he was saying to my father and my other relatives that The sense evidently is: that he offered me the one boy as a present and asked me to leave Midas. Cf.§ 27. telling me to leave Midas for him instead of buying him, but that I refused and wanted to buy them all. I gather that he is even going to mention these points to you with the idea of convincing you of his moderation, if you please. He must think that he is going to address a set of fools who will not realize his effrontery.