Proof of L'Hospital's rule (only special case this time):
Let's assume, that $$ f(a)=g(a)=0 .$$
Using the MVT, we get $$ \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=\frac{f(x)-f(a)}{g(x)-g(a)}=\frac{f'(\zeta)}{g'(\zeta)}, \ \mathrm{where} \ \zeta \in (a, x) \ \mathrm{or} \ \zeta \in (x, a) $$ and thus $$ \lim_{x \rightarrow a} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=\lim_{x \rightarrow a} \frac{f'(\zeta)}{g'(\zeta)}=\lim_{\zeta \rightarrow a} \frac{f'(\zeta)}{g'(\zeta)}=\lim_{x \rightarrow a} \frac{f'(x)}{g'(x)}. $$
In literature, it's always assumed that the limit $$ \lim_{x \rightarrow a} \frac{f'(x)}{g'(x)} $$ exists. Why is that and how is it shown in the proof? According to the proof above, shouldn't the limit of f/g be equal to the limit of f'/g' always? If lim f'/g' is not defined, then lim f/g shouldn't be defined either.
Obviously this isn't true, because there are examples of functions f and g s.t. lim f/g exists even though lim f'/g' does not exist.
L'Hôpital's rule is an "if" statement, not an "if and only if" statement. It tell us that if
$\displaystyle \lim_{x \rightarrow a} \frac{f'(x)}{g'(x)}$
exists then
$\displaystyle \lim_{x \rightarrow a} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} = \lim_{x \rightarrow a} \frac{f'(x)}{g'(x)}$
but it says nothing about the case when $\displaystyle \lim_{x \rightarrow a} \frac{f'(x)}{g'(x)}$ does not exist. In that case $\displaystyle \lim_{x \rightarrow a} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}$ may or may not exist - as you say, there are examples of each possibility.
If $\displaystyle \lim_{x \rightarrow a} \frac{f'(x)}{g'(x)}$ does not exist then, although we may know that
$\displaystyle \frac {f(x)}{g(x)} = \frac {f'(\zeta_1)}{g'(\zeta_2)}$
for some $\zeta_1, \zeta_2 \in (x,a)$, the right hand side does not tend to a specific value as $x \rightarrow a$, so we cannot conclude anything about the behaviour of the left hand side.