Any experience of walking away from a school contract?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Do you practice contract law or commercial litigation? Because there’s no duty for the breaching party to mitigate?

What is your argument that the contract is not enforceable? It has an explicit and not onerous liquidated damages provision. The fact that tuition insurance is available makes the liquidated damages provision even more reasonable.

Where did we establish a liquidated damages provision? In any case, liquidated damages provisions are typically for contracts that are hard to value. This isn’t hard to value. And if the liquidated damages provision provides for the full value of the contract (i.e., a year of tuition), it’s unlikely be enforceable. And in evaluating the enforceability of the provision, the ability of the non breaching party to mitigate loss is considered. Last, most tuition refund insurance doesn’t cover voluntary withdrawal. Most that do cover it at only about 50%.

And way to not answer my question about whether you practice contract law or commercial lit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Do you practice contract law or commercial litigation? Because there’s no duty for the breaching party to mitigate?

What is your argument that the contract is not enforceable? It has an explicit and not onerous liquidated damages provision. The fact that tuition insurance is available makes the liquidated damages provision even more reasonable.

Where did we establish a liquidated damages provision? In any case, liquidated damages provisions are typically for contracts that are hard to value. This isn’t hard to value. And if the liquidated damages provision provides for the full value of the contract (i.e., a year of tuition), it’s unlikely be enforceable. And in evaluating the enforceability of the provision, the ability of the non breaching party to mitigate loss is considered. Last, most tuition refund insurance doesn’t cover voluntary withdrawal. Most that do cover it at only about 50%.

And way to not answer my question about whether you practice contract law or commercial lit.

I am litigator. Are you not following along? Every private school contract explicitly states that if you are committed by a certain date, you are responsible for the entire next year’s tuition. The fact that people here are arguing that the school is damaged not at all or a lot by such withdrawals demonstrates the damage is not obvious. And liquidated damages provisions are routinely upheld in Court, particularly where the amounts are reasonable (you seem unfamiliar with basic contract law). Your client would stupidly pay thousands to litigate only to find they still are on the hook for the tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Do you practice contract law or commercial litigation? Because there’s no duty for the breaching party to mitigate?

What is your argument that the contract is not enforceable? It has an explicit and not onerous liquidated damages provision. The fact that tuition insurance is available makes the liquidated damages provision even more reasonable.

Where did we establish a liquidated damages provision? In any case, liquidated damages provisions are typically for contracts that are hard to value. This isn’t hard to value. And if the liquidated damages provision provides for the full value of the contract (i.e., a year of tuition), it’s unlikely be enforceable. And in evaluating the enforceability of the provision, the ability of the non breaching party to mitigate loss is considered. Last, most tuition refund insurance doesn’t cover voluntary withdrawal. Most that do cover it at only about 50%.

And way to not answer my question about whether you practice contract law or commercial lit.

I am litigator. Are you not following along? Every private school contract explicitly states that if you are committed by a certain date, you are responsible for the entire next year’s tuition. The fact that people here are arguing that the school is damaged not at all or a lot by such withdrawals demonstrates the damage is not obvious. And liquidated damages provisions are routinely upheld in Court, particularly where the amounts are reasonable (you seem unfamiliar with basic contract law). Your client would stupidly pay thousands to litigate only to find they still are on the hook for the tuition.

Doesn’t seem like you practice contract law. You seem confused by the posture here, along with basic principles of contract law and assessing case value. The question was never about what to do if a school sues you for breach. The question was how likely a school is to sue a family withdrawing a child for tuition. The cost to sue is high and the likelihood of success on the merits heavily depends on factual circumstances like the existence of a wait pool of qualified candidates. If there is no fee-shifting provision and the school has a strong wait pool, it’s extremely unlikely that the school will waste money pursuing the family for a negative value claim likely to garner poor publicity.

The school is not damaged much at all if they have a long line of full pay kids on the waitlist ready, willing, and able to enroll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Do you practice contract law or commercial litigation? Because there’s no duty for the breaching party to mitigate?

What is your argument that the contract is not enforceable? It has an explicit and not onerous liquidated damages provision. The fact that tuition insurance is available makes the liquidated damages provision even more reasonable.

Where did we establish a liquidated damages provision? In any case, liquidated damages provisions are typically for contracts that are hard to value. This isn’t hard to value. And if the liquidated damages provision provides for the full value of the contract (i.e., a year of tuition), it’s unlikely be enforceable. And in evaluating the enforceability of the provision, the ability of the non breaching party to mitigate loss is considered. Last, most tuition refund insurance doesn’t cover voluntary withdrawal. Most that do cover it at only about 50%.

And way to not answer my question about whether you practice contract law or commercial lit.

I am litigator. Are you not following along? Every private school contract explicitly states that if you are committed by a certain date, you are responsible for the entire next year’s tuition. The fact that people here are arguing that the school is damaged not at all or a lot by such withdrawals demonstrates the damage is not obvious. And liquidated damages provisions are routinely upheld in Court, particularly where the amounts are reasonable (you seem unfamiliar with basic contract law). Your client would stupidly pay thousands to litigate only to find they still are on the hook for the tuition.

Here is a summary of a case where both the trial and appellate court upheld the school’s right to collect full tuition after a withdrawal. Notice that their reasoning mirrors mine. https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-upholds-parents-obligation-to-pay-full-tuition-after-enrollment-agreements-cancellation-date/ A quick google search turned up similar cases in other jurisdiction.

Also worth noting that Courts have found that the risk of the child not attending is assumed by the parents, who clearly have significant control over thus risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Yea, my mom LOVES to keep up with the DOD gossip networks around here (retirement only gave her more time for tea exchange) and her other favorite gossip topic is comparing k-12 schools... I just enrolled my son in private for next year so I'm sure I would have gotten an earful if that had happened in the DMV...

Great evidence!

The grey haired garden gossip network is basically DCUM without moderation, but you can get a better sense of how verifiable the sources are 🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Do you practice contract law or commercial litigation? Because there’s no duty for the breaching party to mitigate?

What is your argument that the contract is not enforceable? It has an explicit and not onerous liquidated damages provision. The fact that tuition insurance is available makes the liquidated damages provision even more reasonable.

Where did we establish a liquidated damages provision? In any case, liquidated damages provisions are typically for contracts that are hard to value. This isn’t hard to value. And if the liquidated damages provision provides for the full value of the contract (i.e., a year of tuition), it’s unlikely be enforceable. And in evaluating the enforceability of the provision, the ability of the non breaching party to mitigate loss is considered. Last, most tuition refund insurance doesn’t cover voluntary withdrawal. Most that do cover it at only about 50%.

And way to not answer my question about whether you practice contract law or commercial lit.

I am litigator. Are you not following along? Every private school contract explicitly states that if you are committed by a certain date, you are responsible for the entire next year’s tuition. The fact that people here are arguing that the school is damaged not at all or a lot by such withdrawals demonstrates the damage is not obvious. And liquidated damages provisions are routinely upheld in Court, particularly where the amounts are reasonable (you seem unfamiliar with basic contract law). Your client would stupidly pay thousands to litigate only to find they still are on the hook for the tuition.

Doesn’t seem like you practice contract law. You seem confused by the posture here, along with basic principles of contract law and assessing case value. The question was never about what to do if a school sues you for breach. The question was how likely a school is to sue a family withdrawing a child for tuition. The cost to sue is high and the likelihood of success on the merits heavily depends on factual circumstances like the existence of a wait pool of qualified candidates. If there is no fee-shifting provision and the school has a strong wait pool, it’s extremely unlikely that the school will waste money pursuing the family for a negative value claim likely to garner poor publicity.

The school is not damaged much at all if they have a long line of full pay kids on the waitlist ready, willing, and able to enroll.

Courts disagree. See my last post above with a cite.

Also schools don’t hesitate to enforce because they can’t afford to be known as schools who accept late withdrawals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Do you practice contract law or commercial litigation? Because there’s no duty for the breaching party to mitigate?

What is your argument that the contract is not enforceable? It has an explicit and not onerous liquidated damages provision. The fact that tuition insurance is available makes the liquidated damages provision even more reasonable.

Where did we establish a liquidated damages provision? In any case, liquidated damages provisions are typically for contracts that are hard to value. This isn’t hard to value. And if the liquidated damages provision provides for the full value of the contract (i.e., a year of tuition), it’s unlikely be enforceable. And in evaluating the enforceability of the provision, the ability of the non breaching party to mitigate loss is considered. Last, most tuition refund insurance doesn’t cover voluntary withdrawal. Most that do cover it at only about 50%.

And way to not answer my question about whether you practice contract law or commercial lit.

I am litigator. Are you not following along? Every private school contract explicitly states that if you are committed by a certain date, you are responsible for the entire next year’s tuition. The fact that people here are arguing that the school is damaged not at all or a lot by such withdrawals demonstrates the damage is not obvious. And liquidated damages provisions are routinely upheld in Court, particularly where the amounts are reasonable (you seem unfamiliar with basic contract law). Your client would stupidly pay thousands to litigate only to find they still are on the hook for the tuition.

Here is a summary of a case where both the trial and appellate court upheld the school’s right to collect full tuition after a withdrawal. Notice that their reasoning mirrors mine. https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-upholds-parents-obligation-to-pay-full-tuition-after-enrollment-agreements-cancellation-date/ A quick google search turned up similar cases in other jurisdiction.

Also worth noting that Courts have found that the risk of the child not attending is assumed by the parents, who clearly have significant control over thus risk.

This case is from Ohio, so it would be hard to judge how relevant it is in the DMV and the likelihood that a DC school would activate a legal enforcement. The factors that are different would include the value of the tuition vs. the price of the lawyers needed to litigate and how easily the spots could be filled. I would imagine it would be far easier to recover $50K in tuition off a DC waitlist than an Ohio one (especially when you consider here it would be 1 seat vs. in Ohio it appears to be 3). Further, the facts of the case may defer on a case by case basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Do you practice contract law or commercial litigation? Because there’s no duty for the breaching party to mitigate?

What is your argument that the contract is not enforceable? It has an explicit and not onerous liquidated damages provision. The fact that tuition insurance is available makes the liquidated damages provision even more reasonable.

Where did we establish a liquidated damages provision? In any case, liquidated damages provisions are typically for contracts that are hard to value. This isn’t hard to value. And if the liquidated damages provision provides for the full value of the contract (i.e., a year of tuition), it’s unlikely be enforceable. And in evaluating the enforceability of the provision, the ability of the non breaching party to mitigate loss is considered. Last, most tuition refund insurance doesn’t cover voluntary withdrawal. Most that do cover it at only about 50%.

And way to not answer my question about whether you practice contract law or commercial lit.

I am litigator. Are you not following along? Every private school contract explicitly states that if you are committed by a certain date, you are responsible for the entire next year’s tuition. The fact that people here are arguing that the school is damaged not at all or a lot by such withdrawals demonstrates the damage is not obvious. And liquidated damages provisions are routinely upheld in Court, particularly where the amounts are reasonable (you seem unfamiliar with basic contract law). Your client would stupidly pay thousands to litigate only to find they still are on the hook for the tuition.

Here is a summary of a case where both the trial and appellate court upheld the school’s right to collect full tuition after a withdrawal. Notice that their reasoning mirrors mine. https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-upholds-parents-obligation-to-pay-full-tuition-after-enrollment-agreements-cancellation-date/ A quick google search turned up similar cases in other jurisdiction.

Also worth noting that Courts have found that the risk of the child not attending is assumed by the parents, who clearly have significant control over thus risk.

The parents never raised an argument that the school had a qualified wait pool (it probably didn’t — it’s Ohio, not DC or NYC). This the entire basis of the duty to mitigate argument.

The parent also had two children enrolled, which doubles the harm to the school and the possible recovery without doubling litigation expenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Do you practice contract law or commercial litigation? Because there’s no duty for the breaching party to mitigate?

What is your argument that the contract is not enforceable? It has an explicit and not onerous liquidated damages provision. The fact that tuition insurance is available makes the liquidated damages provision even more reasonable.

Where did we establish a liquidated damages provision? In any case, liquidated damages provisions are typically for contracts that are hard to value. This isn’t hard to value. And if the liquidated damages provision provides for the full value of the contract (i.e., a year of tuition), it’s unlikely be enforceable. And in evaluating the enforceability of the provision, the ability of the non breaching party to mitigate loss is considered. Last, most tuition refund insurance doesn’t cover voluntary withdrawal. Most that do cover it at only about 50%.

And way to not answer my question about whether you practice contract law or commercial lit.

I am litigator. Are you not following along? Every private school contract explicitly states that if you are committed by a certain date, you are responsible for the entire next year’s tuition. The fact that people here are arguing that the school is damaged not at all or a lot by such withdrawals demonstrates the damage is not obvious. And liquidated damages provisions are routinely upheld in Court, particularly where the amounts are reasonable (you seem unfamiliar with basic contract law). Your client would stupidly pay thousands to litigate only to find they still are on the hook for the tuition.

Here is a summary of a case where both the trial and appellate court upheld the school’s right to collect full tuition after a withdrawal. Notice that their reasoning mirrors mine. https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-upholds-parents-obligation-to-pay-full-tuition-after-enrollment-agreements-cancellation-date/ A quick google search turned up similar cases in other jurisdiction.

Also worth noting that Courts have found that the risk of the child not attending is assumed by the parents, who clearly have significant control over thus risk.

This case is from Ohio, so it would be hard to judge how relevant it is in the DMV and the likelihood that a DC school would activate a legal enforcement. The factors that are different would include the value of the tuition vs. the price of the lawyers needed to litigate and how easily the spots could be filled. I would imagine it would be far easier to recover $50K in tuition off a DC waitlist than an Ohio one (especially when you consider here it would be 1 seat vs. in Ohio it appears to be 3). Further, the facts of the case may defer on a case by case basis.

Are you still playing at being a lawyer? Literally everything you have said so far has been proven incorrect (“What liquidated damages clause,” what a bozo). As I already said, a quick search will turn up similar rulings in other jurisdictions.

There are lawyers who specialize in working with private schools. They understand the case law (unlike you, apparently) and draft enrollment contracts that will withstand challenge. Schools are confident they will win in Court, as they should be, and are accordingly comfortable taking a hard line with parents. It’s always possible they will negotiate a lower amount, but they know they don’t need to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Do you practice contract law or commercial litigation? Because there’s no duty for the breaching party to mitigate?

What is your argument that the contract is not enforceable? It has an explicit and not onerous liquidated damages provision. The fact that tuition insurance is available makes the liquidated damages provision even more reasonable.

Where did we establish a liquidated damages provision? In any case, liquidated damages provisions are typically for contracts that are hard to value. This isn’t hard to value. And if the liquidated damages provision provides for the full value of the contract (i.e., a year of tuition), it’s unlikely be enforceable. And in evaluating the enforceability of the provision, the ability of the non breaching party to mitigate loss is considered. Last, most tuition refund insurance doesn’t cover voluntary withdrawal. Most that do cover it at only about 50%.

And way to not answer my question about whether you practice contract law or commercial lit.

I am litigator. Are you not following along? Every private school contract explicitly states that if you are committed by a certain date, you are responsible for the entire next year’s tuition. The fact that people here are arguing that the school is damaged not at all or a lot by such withdrawals demonstrates the damage is not obvious. And liquidated damages provisions are routinely upheld in Court, particularly where the amounts are reasonable (you seem unfamiliar with basic contract law). Your client would stupidly pay thousands to litigate only to find they still are on the hook for the tuition.

Here is a summary of a case where both the trial and appellate court upheld the school’s right to collect full tuition after a withdrawal. Notice that their reasoning mirrors mine. https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-upholds-parents-obligation-to-pay-full-tuition-after-enrollment-agreements-cancellation-date/ A quick google search turned up similar cases in other jurisdiction.

Also worth noting that Courts have found that the risk of the child not attending is assumed by the parents, who clearly have significant control over thus risk.

The parents never raised an argument that the school had a qualified wait pool (it probably didn’t — it’s Ohio, not DC or NYC). This the entire basis of the duty to mitigate argument.

The parent also had two children enrolled, which doubles the harm to the school and the possible recovery without doubling litigation expenses.

yes they did. And no school generally maintains a waitlist after the enrollment date, because those kids are enrolled elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Do you practice contract law or commercial litigation? Because there’s no duty for the breaching party to mitigate?

What is your argument that the contract is not enforceable? It has an explicit and not onerous liquidated damages provision. The fact that tuition insurance is available makes the liquidated damages provision even more reasonable.

Where did we establish a liquidated damages provision? In any case, liquidated damages provisions are typically for contracts that are hard to value. This isn’t hard to value. And if the liquidated damages provision provides for the full value of the contract (i.e., a year of tuition), it’s unlikely be enforceable. And in evaluating the enforceability of the provision, the ability of the non breaching party to mitigate loss is considered. Last, most tuition refund insurance doesn’t cover voluntary withdrawal. Most that do cover it at only about 50%.

And way to not answer my question about whether you practice contract law or commercial lit.

I am litigator. Are you not following along? Every private school contract explicitly states that if you are committed by a certain date, you are responsible for the entire next year’s tuition. The fact that people here are arguing that the school is damaged not at all or a lot by such withdrawals demonstrates the damage is not obvious. And liquidated damages provisions are routinely upheld in Court, particularly where the amounts are reasonable (you seem unfamiliar with basic contract law). Your client would stupidly pay thousands to litigate only to find they still are on the hook for the tuition.

Here is a summary of a case where both the trial and appellate court upheld the school’s right to collect full tuition after a withdrawal. Notice that their reasoning mirrors mine. https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-upholds-parents-obligation-to-pay-full-tuition-after-enrollment-agreements-cancellation-date/ A quick google search turned up similar cases in other jurisdiction.

Also worth noting that Courts have found that the risk of the child not attending is assumed by the parents, who clearly have significant control over thus risk.

This case is from Ohio, so it would be hard to judge how relevant it is in the DMV and the likelihood that a DC school would activate a legal enforcement. The factors that are different would include the value of the tuition vs. the price of the lawyers needed to litigate and how easily the spots could be filled. I would imagine it would be far easier to recover $50K in tuition off a DC waitlist than an Ohio one (especially when you consider here it would be 1 seat vs. in Ohio it appears to be 3). Further, the facts of the case may defer on a case by case basis.

Are you still playing at being a lawyer? Literally everything you have said so far has been proven incorrect (“What liquidated damages clause,” what a bozo). As I already said, a quick search will turn up similar rulings in other jurisdictions.

There are lawyers who specialize in working with private schools. They understand the case law (unlike you, apparently) and draft enrollment contracts that will withstand challenge. Schools are confident they will win in Court, as they should be, and are accordingly comfortable taking a hard line with parents. It’s always possible they will negotiate a lower amount, but they know they don’t need to.

That was a DP..........

You just completely ignore duty to mitigate damages and the availability of a wait pool. And obviously, you know contract law is state-specific, assuming you're an actual lawyer.

As to "what liquidated damages clause," I said that we hadn't established in this hypo that there was one. Many schools, particularly the less sophisticated ones, don't have one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Do you practice contract law or commercial litigation? Because there’s no duty for the breaching party to mitigate?

What is your argument that the contract is not enforceable? It has an explicit and not onerous liquidated damages provision. The fact that tuition insurance is available makes the liquidated damages provision even more reasonable.

Where did we establish a liquidated damages provision? In any case, liquidated damages provisions are typically for contracts that are hard to value. This isn’t hard to value. And if the liquidated damages provision provides for the full value of the contract (i.e., a year of tuition), it’s unlikely be enforceable. And in evaluating the enforceability of the provision, the ability of the non breaching party to mitigate loss is considered. Last, most tuition refund insurance doesn’t cover voluntary withdrawal. Most that do cover it at only about 50%.

And way to not answer my question about whether you practice contract law or commercial lit.

I am litigator. Are you not following along? Every private school contract explicitly states that if you are committed by a certain date, you are responsible for the entire next year’s tuition. The fact that people here are arguing that the school is damaged not at all or a lot by such withdrawals demonstrates the damage is not obvious. And liquidated damages provisions are routinely upheld in Court, particularly where the amounts are reasonable (you seem unfamiliar with basic contract law). Your client would stupidly pay thousands to litigate only to find they still are on the hook for the tuition.

Here is a summary of a case where both the trial and appellate court upheld the school’s right to collect full tuition after a withdrawal. Notice that their reasoning mirrors mine. https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-upholds-parents-obligation-to-pay-full-tuition-after-enrollment-agreements-cancellation-date/ A quick google search turned up similar cases in other jurisdiction.

Also worth noting that Courts have found that the risk of the child not attending is assumed by the parents, who clearly have significant control over thus risk.

The parents never raised an argument that the school had a qualified wait pool (it probably didn’t — it’s Ohio, not DC or NYC). This the entire basis of the duty to mitigate argument.

The parent also had two children enrolled, which doubles the harm to the school and the possible recovery without doubling litigation expenses.

yes they did. And no school generally maintains a waitlist after the enrollment date, because those kids are enrolled elsewhere.

Okay, you don't know about private schools or the law. You think Sidwell doesn't maintain a wait pool for attrition after the enrollment deadline? They just close up shop?

How is your reading? The link says: "The affidavit stated there were no students on the waitlist in the two classes that Machado’s children were enrolled in." In other words, whether there is a waiting list is something courts weigh in breach of contract cases in private schools.

[Anonymous]

There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a reputation issue. Since most families are relatively well off, they would prefer to pay the full year rather than going to a trial.

Having said that, private schools don’t really care if the family is poor. They just want their money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/08/private-school-lawsuit-sandy-springs-families/

It's a reputational issue for the schools, not for the families. SSFS sued this mother when it was on the verge of closing due to collapsing finances. It ultimately forgave the debt because of how bad the publicity was for it. But SSFS evidently didn't have a wait pool of tons of eager, full-pay families. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come close to closing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find all of the pearl clutching about the morals of breaking contracts in these threads to be so interesting. I am someone who never breaks contracts or backs out of things, so I doubt I'd find myself in this situation absent unusual circumstances. But I'm also a lawyer and people break contracts all the time. Sometimes it's the reasonable, logical thing to do. These schools are businesses too, and they will get over it and likely fill the seat if the school is any good.

So as a lawyer, your advice to the school where someone broke their contract but doesn’t want to pay the costs they agreed to by signing the contract, is to just get over and not try to enforce it? Interesting take.

Lol, as a lawyer, I can assure you that advice is dispensed very regularly. You explain the likelihood of success, what the client would obtain if it won everything it wanted, and the cost of litigation. You then put a dollar figure on the value of the case. If the case has negative or minimal value, you typically advise the client not to bring it unless there is some sort of personal reason for not bringing the suit.

Also a lawyer. Would have to advise client near zero chance of success in these situations because contracts are very explicit on what damages are for breach. Further, there is an easy way to mitigate, tuition insurance. Far cheaper to pay $40,000 than litigate and then pay $40,000.

Also, the military service poster is clearly a troll.

Do you practice contract law or commercial litigation? Because there’s no duty for the breaching party to mitigate?

What is your argument that the contract is not enforceable? It has an explicit and not onerous liquidated damages provision. The fact that tuition insurance is available makes the liquidated damages provision even more reasonable.

Where did we establish a liquidated damages provision? In any case, liquidated damages provisions are typically for contracts that are hard to value. This isn’t hard to value. And if the liquidated damages provision provides for the full value of the contract (i.e., a year of tuition), it’s unlikely be enforceable. And in evaluating the enforceability of the provision, the ability of the non breaching party to mitigate loss is considered. Last, most tuition refund insurance doesn’t cover voluntary withdrawal. Most that do cover it at only about 50%.

And way to not answer my question about whether you practice contract law or commercial lit.

I am litigator. Are you not following along? Every private school contract explicitly states that if you are committed by a certain date, you are responsible for the entire next year’s tuition. The fact that people here are arguing that the school is damaged not at all or a lot by such withdrawals demonstrates the damage is not obvious. And liquidated damages provisions are routinely upheld in Court, particularly where the amounts are reasonable (you seem unfamiliar with basic contract law). Your client would stupidly pay thousands to litigate only to find they still are on the hook for the tuition.

Here is a summary of a case where both the trial and appellate court upheld the school’s right to collect full tuition after a withdrawal. Notice that their reasoning mirrors mine. https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-upholds-parents-obligation-to-pay-full-tuition-after-enrollment-agreements-cancellation-date/ A quick google search turned up similar cases in other jurisdiction.

Also worth noting that Courts have found that the risk of the child not attending is assumed by the parents, who clearly have significant control over thus risk.

The parents never raised an argument that the school had a qualified wait pool (it probably didn’t — it’s Ohio, not DC or NYC). This the entire basis of the duty to mitigate argument.

The parent also had two children enrolled, which doubles the harm to the school and the possible recovery without doubling litigation expenses.

yes they did. And no school generally maintains a waitlist after the enrollment date, because those kids are enrolled elsewhere.

Okay, you don't know about private schools or the law. You think Sidwell doesn't maintain a wait pool for attrition after the enrollment deadline? They just close up shop?

How is your reading? The link says: "The affidavit stated there were no students on the waitlist in the two classes that Machado’s children were enrolled in." In other words, whether there is a waiting list is something courts weigh in breach of contract cases in private schools.

No I don’t think they keep a formal waiting list after the enrollment date has passed. Why would they? Everybody has to commit somewhere by they date and is subject to the same liquidated damages provision.