Camp keeping non-refundable deposit but cancelling camp

[Anonymous]

lawyer here: this is a simple contract question. You paid consideration X to Party Y for service Z. X was non-refundable under the terms of the contract. However, Party Y failed to perform service Z, therefore the contract is now VOID. The fact that consideration X was nonrefundable per the terms of the contract is moot, because the contract is no longer operative. Therefore, your consideration should be returned. If Party Y wants to blame their failure to perform on someone or something else, that is their issue to pursue.

[Anonymous]

That is the purpose of Force Majuere. It is a protection against exactly this.

[Anonymous]

Unless “ act of God” /pandemic is mentioned in the contract as an inhibiting factor of providing the service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Full disclosure I am a Clara Barton parent too. In the scheme of things - even having paid throughout the year when we didn’t have school, another $250 is not going to break the bank. Would I prefer not pay? Sure. But I would also not prefer a lot of things these days. This school is an institution and like it or not there are countless administrative costs associated with cancelling. Having been at other preschools I know what a privilege it is to be part of this community - other than that I have no role (ie I am not on the board). But I did feel compelled to weigh in and say keep this in perspective, OP. My guess is that this is about principle and not the $250.

OP here. Nice to hear from another parent. A couple of things in particular irk me about them keeping the money for camp. 1) I detest all the flowery rhetoric about community. They are behaving like a for-profit entity. We have lost/are losing out on half of March; all of April; half of May; and all of the June payment; in return we get Zoom school. Not to mention I don't think that the "community" talk is anything more than lip service. So many parents are so cliquish; so few people speak to us at drop-off and pickup. We didn't know that many people when we started and we still don't. Plus their landlord is the county and they are participating in government programs to make payroll. They are not going to close or lose money. 2) Both you and they operate under the assumption everyone enrolled is rich. You don't know a thing about our finances. $250 is not nothing to us. Except the credit for half of May's tuition they have done parents no favors at all. I have not reviewed the terms of the camp agreement but if they cancel the other sessions I may challenge them. I think the real reason they are doing Zoom is to demonstrate that some services were being rendered.

[Anonymous]

Op, it sounds like this just isn’t a good fit for your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, you sound like a spoiled child. You signed up in good faith, they prepared to open sinking the costs, the government forced a closure. The deposit policy was clear. But,sure shell out for legal fees. Litatgation is not a middle class sport. You will ultimately loose. However, I suspect that you are really just bored, hurt that the rules apply to you, and irrationally obsessing.

You clearly don't know anything about litigation or spelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Full disclosure I am a Clara Barton parent too. In the scheme of things - even having paid throughout the year when we didn’t have school, another $250 is not going to break the bank. Would I prefer not pay? Sure. But I would also not prefer a lot of things these days. This school is an institution and like it or not there are countless administrative costs associated with cancelling. Having been at other preschools I know what a privilege it is to be part of this community - other than that I have no role (ie I am not on the board). But I did feel compelled to weigh in and say keep this in perspective, OP. My guess is that this is about principle and not the $250.

OP here. Nice to hear from another parent. A couple of things in particular irk me about them keeping the money for camp. 1) I detest all the flowery rhetoric about community. They are behaving like a for-profit entity. We have lost/are losing out on half of March; all of April; half of May; and all of the June payment; in return we get Zoom school. Not to mention I don't think that the "community" talk is anything more than lip service. So many parents are so cliquish; so few people speak to us at drop-off and pickup. We didn't know that many people when we started and we still don't. Plus their landlord is the county and they are participating in government programs to make payroll. They are not going to close or lose money. 2) Both you and they operate under the assumption everyone enrolled is rich. You don't know a thing about our finances. $250 is not nothing to us. Except the credit for half of May's tuition they have done parents no favors at all. I have not reviewed the terms of the camp agreement but if they cancel the other sessions I may challenge them. I think the real reason they are doing Zoom is to demonstrate that some services were being rendered.

OP- I am in 100% agreement with you about how unfair it is for the camp to keep your $250 deposit without rendering a service that you signed up for. Can you find out if they received a PPP loan and if so inform the SBA of their actions of not providing services but still charging parents for them? I agree that zoom school is not the same as an in person nursery school. My son’s Montessori offered zoom school at a reduced cost and if we chose not to participate they offered the option of pausing our enrollment for 10% of our tuition so we don’t lose our spot when we return. Having multiple options was more than fair for us and I am sorry your nursery school was not flexible to work with you and other families during this uncertain time. $250 is a lot of money for us as well and I would not just shrug and move on if a business did not live up to the end of their contract and expected us to forfeit our deposit

Good luck and let us know how things go

[Anonymous]

That should not be allowed. My dd's camp is being offered virtually which she would hate so we are losing the non refundable deposit. I get it, but they are definitely not making it easy on people.

[Anonymous]

I do not see the issue here.

Like the lawyer above said this is a contract issue.

They can not keep the non refundable deposit if they do not hold camp.

Calleva should not be keeping $75 of the deposits either if they are not holding camp. The $150 for next year? Who knows if they will hold camp next year. But that's fine if a family chooses to have them keep the deposit to hold a spot.

[Anonymous]

Agree with the PP legal analysis. The camp is wrong to keep the money. Force maejure doesn’t shield the camp to keep a deposit. The camp has probably already spent the money to prepare for camp and doesn’t have enough reserves to cover refunds. If this is the case, it should be upfront about this. On the other hand, if the camp owners have already taken the deposit money as salaries or profit, that’s a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not see the issue here.

Like the lawyer above said this is a contract issue.

They can not keep the non refundable deposit if they do not hold camp.

Calleva should not be keeping $75 of the deposits either if they are not holding camp. The $150 for next year? Who knows if they will hold camp next year. But that's fine if a family chooses to have them keep the deposit to hold a spot.

It’s absolutely a contract issue. But that’s precisely why it is perfectly legal in most cases for them to keep the contract.

In most cases, the contract says both that the deposit is non-refundable and they may have to and can cancel camp because of an act of god. Some contracts will expressly reference a pandemic or similar.

These perfectly legal contract terms place the risk on the customer in the unlikely event something like a pandemic requires canceling camp.

Because it is bad business and arguably “unfair,” even if perfectly legal, many camps are offering refunds or credits. But that is a business decision so as to not piss off customers, not because they have to - unless possibly they used a poorly written contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the PP legal analysis. The camp is wrong to keep the money. Force maejure doesn’t shield the camp to keep a deposit. The camp has probably already spent the money to prepare for camp and doesn’t have enough reserves to cover refunds. If this is the case, it should be upfront about this. On the other hand, if the camp owners have already taken the deposit money as salaries or profit, that’s a different story.

What legal analysis are you referring to? You seem to each say it is unfair, simply declare it isn’t legal, but don’t remotely explain how you came to that “legal” conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the PP legal analysis. The camp is wrong to keep the money. Force maejure doesn’t shield the camp to keep a deposit. The camp has probably already spent the money to prepare for camp and doesn’t have enough reserves to cover refunds. If this is the case, it should be upfront about this. On the other hand, if the camp owners have already taken the deposit money as salaries or profit, that’s a different story.

What legal analysis are you referring to? You seem to each say it is unfair, simply declare it isn’t legal, but don’t remotely explain how you came to that “legal” conclusion.

Look at the post on 5/20. If you had gone to law school, you would know this, and much more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lawyer here: this is a simple contract question. You paid consideration X to Party Y for service Z. X was non-refundable under the terms of the contract. However, Party Y failed to perform service Z, therefore the contract is now VOID. The fact that consideration X was nonrefundable per the terms of the contract is moot, because the contract is no longer operative. Therefore, your consideration should be returned. If Party Y wants to blame their failure to perform on someone or something else, that is their issue to pursue.

+1. Sounds like 1L Contracts to me.