Lawsuits when you don't attend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

Because the premise of such contracts that bind you to pay for the whole year, even if you do not attend, or pay a deposit, is exploitative in the extreme. The parent's mistake highlights the root of the problem, which is not of her making, but rather of the greedy and grasping maneuvers that many private schools resort to.

If you think about this honestly for about 3 second, you should be able to figure out why it is entirely appropriate for someone who accepts a spot at a school to be liable for the entire year's tuition.

Or maybe you won't be able to. But that's on you, not the nature of the contract. It's not a difficult concept.

But it is incumbent on the school -- the party with more information, experience, and power -- to make that abundantly explicit, not just buried in the small print of the contract. A school that is serious about diversity needs to recognize that means prospective parents will have a diverse understanding of how contracts work and ability to read dense legalese. It's also the school's job to be explicit about what constitutes acceptance of the contract -- because it seems reasonable to think that not paying the required deposit means that the contract wasn't accepted.

I'm glad that the school has not only committed to making things right with this family but is going to consider better communication about its contract, keeping in mind that not everyone has the same background and knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, but the new leadership would have been well aware of the situation. It’s not like they found out about it when the article went to press. They easily could have chosen not to pursue payment from this woman before now. They’re only doing the right thing now because of the negative publicity from the article.

This is unfair. We do not know whether he was aware of this lawsuit, or not. His predecessor enforced the suit, and the court decision was made well before he started on July 1st. Also, what good did it do him to wait until after the article was published to drop the suit? None. I believe he would have dropped it sooner had he been aware of it. (And from what I can tell, he’s not the kind of person who would have enforced this lawsuit to begin with.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email sent out to parents tonight from new HoS

I want to make you aware of an article in the Washington Post today that reports how Sandy Spring Friends School pursued legal action for non-payment against a preschool parent who accepted, but ultimately did not enroll, at our school.

Though financial stewardship is a priority for our school, the approach taken to resolve this matter at the time by the prior administration was misguided, and does not reflect the community values of SSFS. I have contacted the parent to apologize on behalf of the School, and to let her know that SSFS will not be seeking any tuition payments from her.

While the staff members involved in pursuing legal action in this case are no longer employed at the School, Sandy Spring Friends School is now reviewing how and why the decision to pursue this legal action was made. In the coming weeks, I will also be studying and revising admissions contract procedures and business office practices.

As I begin my new leadership of the School, I am committed to ensuring that Sandy Spring Friends School’s practices align with our founding Quaker values.

I mean…they only just now made this decision? After the article came out? Ok.

Hasn’t their leadership almost
completely turned over since they went to court?

Yes, but the new leadership would have been well aware of the situation. It’s not like they found out about it when the article went to press. They easily could have chosen not to pursue payment from this woman before now. They’re only doing the right thing now because of the negative publicity from the article.

This is an unfair take. We don’t know whether he knew about the lawsuit, nor do we know if the school was aware of this article. Don’t you think if he knew about it and wanted to drop the lawsuit he’d have done so before the article was published? What good did it do to wait until the article was published to then drop the suit? None. The PR damage is done…

His predecessor enforced this lawsuit. The court decision was rendered before he started on July 1st. I would not be surprised had she not mentioned it during the transition.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone explain why the school would expend money on lawyers to sue an individual that clearly doesn't have the money?

That's what I don't understand in this situation. There are tons of people that get judgments against them and they still just don't pay. I am fairly certain only the government can garnish wages...not private groups in a lawsuit.

The Landon family profiled is different...that family clearly has the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why the school would expend money on lawyers to sue an individual that clearly doesn't have the money?

That's what I don't understand in this situation. There are tons of people that get judgments against them and they still just don't pay. I am fairly certain only the government can garnish wages...not private groups in a lawsuit.

The Landon family profiled is different...that family clearly has the money.

This is incorrect. A private litigant who secures a judgment can obtain a court order to garnish wages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

Because the premise of such contracts that bind you to pay for the whole year, even if you do not attend, or pay a deposit, is exploitative in the extreme. The parent's mistake highlights the root of the problem, which is not of her making, but rather of the greedy and grasping maneuvers that many private schools resort to.

If you think about this honestly for about 3 second, you should be able to figure out why it is entirely appropriate for someone who accepts a spot at a school to be liable for the entire year's tuition.

Or maybe you won't be able to. But that's on you, not the nature of the contract. It's not a difficult concept.

But it is incumbent on the school -- the party with more information, experience, and power -- to make that abundantly explicit, not just buried in the small print of the contract. A school that is serious about diversity needs to recognize that means prospective parents will have a diverse understanding of how contracts work and ability to read dense legalese. It's also the school's job to be explicit about what constitutes acceptance of the contract -- because it seems reasonable to think that not paying the required deposit means that the contract wasn't accepted.

I'm glad that the school has not only committed to making things right with this family but is going to consider better communication about its contract, keeping in mind that not everyone has the same background and knowledge.

This is your aspirational take on what should happen, not an accurate statement of the law.

And once again, you have no idea whether it is buried in the contract or not, because she didn't read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

People typically don’t see the relationship between a religious private school and a lower income parent as a pure caveat emptor predatory situation where the school exerts all its lawful leverage to its pure advantage. Also even though I am a lawyer I was surprised to learn that there is strong precedent in Maryland that private schools have zero duty to mitigate. Every other context I know of the contracting parties have a duty to mitigate. She was not at all crazy to belie be it would be like the daycares she worked at (one or two months, a reasonable length of time to cover the gap in finding a new student). Also she was not unreasonable to think they were already on notice and had a duty to mitigate. This is different from pulling a child mid-year where it might be tough to get another family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a huge piece of information missing from this article. SSFS does not start giving financial aid until Kindergarten. This is stated on their financial aid page and has been for years. This child would have been in PK, so financial aid was never going to be an option. Between the parent's lack of reading the contract before signing, and an apparent lack of financial aid research, I fail to see how the school is at fault.

No doubt that the school is legally correct and that the parent was unsophisticated and naive about how things work. But that doesn't change the school's moral culpability, IMO.

In order to be a good Quaker, one has to allow counterparties to contracts to breach them with impunity? Wow, that's rough.

One has to make an effort not to push your commercial relationships all the way to the edge of predatory. yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

Because the premise of such contracts that bind you to pay for the whole year, even if you do not attend, or pay a deposit, is exploitative in the extreme. The parent's mistake highlights the root of the problem, which is not of her making, but rather of the greedy and grasping maneuvers that many private schools resort to.

If you think about this honestly for about 3 second, you should be able to figure out why it is entirely appropriate for someone who accepts a spot at a school to be liable for the entire year's tuition.

Or maybe you won't be able to. But that's on you, not the nature of the contract. It's not a difficult concept.

But it is incumbent on the school -- the party with more information, experience, and power -- to make that abundantly explicit, not just buried in the small print of the contract. A school that is serious about diversity needs to recognize that means prospective parents will have a diverse understanding of how contracts work and ability to read dense legalese. It's also the school's job to be explicit about what constitutes acceptance of the contract -- because it seems reasonable to think that not paying the required deposit means that the contract wasn't accepted.

I'm glad that the school has not only committed to making things right with this family but is going to consider better communication about its contract, keeping in mind that not everyone has the same background and knowledge.

This is your aspirational take on what should happen, not an accurate statement of the law.

And once again, you have no idea whether it is buried in the contract or not, because she didn't read it.

PP wasn't trying to be accurate re: the law, they were trying to show that unless you want to be seen as the aggressor, you leave it be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

Because the premise of such contracts that bind you to pay for the whole year, even if you do not attend, or pay a deposit, is exploitative in the extreme. The parent's mistake highlights the root of the problem, which is not of her making, but rather of the greedy and grasping maneuvers that many private schools resort to.

If you think about this honestly for about 3 second, you should be able to figure out why it is entirely appropriate for someone who accepts a spot at a school to be liable for the entire year's tuition.

Or maybe you won't be able to. But that's on you, not the nature of the contract. It's not a difficult concept.

Why should the school get a windfall? No it is not self-evident. Every other type of contract the parties have a duty to mitigate. private schools managed to get some truly terrible case law on their side in Maryland. Hopefully the MD legislature will correct this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why the school would expend money on lawyers to sue an individual that clearly doesn't have the money?

That's what I don't understand in this situation. There are tons of people that get judgments against them and they still just don't pay. I am fairly certain only the government can garnish wages...not private groups in a lawsuit.

The Landon family profiled is different...that family clearly has the money.

Maybe the law firm had a big retainer. Maybe they just want to make an example of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

Because the premise of such contracts that bind you to pay for the whole year, even if you do not attend, or pay a deposit, is exploitative in the extreme. The parent's mistake highlights the root of the problem, which is not of her making, but rather of the greedy and grasping maneuvers that many private schools resort to.

If you think about this honestly for about 3 second, you should be able to figure out why it is entirely appropriate for someone who accepts a spot at a school to be liable for the entire year's tuition.

Or maybe you won't be able to. But that's on you, not the nature of the contract. It's not a difficult concept.

But it is incumbent on the school -- the party with more information, experience, and power -- to make that abundantly explicit, not just buried in the small print of the contract. A school that is serious about diversity needs to recognize that means prospective parents will have a diverse understanding of how contracts work and ability to read dense legalese. It's also the school's job to be explicit about what constitutes acceptance of the contract -- because it seems reasonable to think that not paying the required deposit means that the contract wasn't accepted.

I'm glad that the school has not only committed to making things right with this family but is going to consider better communication about its contract, keeping in mind that not everyone has the same background and knowledge.

This is your aspirational take on what should happen, not an accurate statement of the law.

And once again, you have no idea whether it is buried in the contract or not, because she didn't read it.

PP wasn't trying to be accurate re: the law, they were trying to show that unless you want to be seen as the aggressor, you leave it be.

Right. The school is free to behave like this; and free to then go out of business when everyone is universally appalled and pulls donations and students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

Because the premise of such contracts that bind you to pay for the whole year, even if you do not attend, or pay a deposit, is exploitative in the extreme. The parent's mistake highlights the root of the problem, which is not of her making, but rather of the greedy and grasping maneuvers that many private schools resort to.

If you think about this honestly for about 3 second, you should be able to figure out why it is entirely appropriate for someone who accepts a spot at a school to be liable for the entire year's tuition.

Or maybe you won't be able to. But that's on you, not the nature of the contract. It's not a difficult concept.

But it is incumbent on the school -- the party with more information, experience, and power -- to make that abundantly explicit, not just buried in the small print of the contract. A school that is serious about diversity needs to recognize that means prospective parents will have a diverse understanding of how contracts work and ability to read dense legalese. It's also the school's job to be explicit about what constitutes acceptance of the contract -- because it seems reasonable to think that not paying the required deposit means that the contract wasn't accepted.

I'm glad that the school has not only committed to making things right with this family but is going to consider better communication about its contract, keeping in mind that not everyone has the same background and knowledge.

Agree! Legally the school has the right to enforce the contract but morally it was in the wrong, which is not nothing for a school that (I assume) is trying to g to instill good values on its students. The fact that the school backtracked only when it got bad press does not make them look better (although I’m happy for the family involved)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

Because the premise of such contracts that bind you to pay for the whole year, even if you do not attend, or pay a deposit, is exploitative in the extreme. The parent's mistake highlights the root of the problem, which is not of her making, but rather of the greedy and grasping maneuvers that many private schools resort to.

If you think about this honestly for about 3 second, you should be able to figure out why it is entirely appropriate for someone who accepts a spot at a school to be liable for the entire year's tuition.

Or maybe you won't be able to. But that's on you, not the nature of the contract. It's not a difficult concept.

But it is incumbent on the school -- the party with more information, experience, and power -- to make that abundantly explicit, not just buried in the small print of the contract. A school that is serious about diversity needs to recognize that means prospective parents will have a diverse understanding of how contracts work and ability to read dense legalese. It's also the school's job to be explicit about what constitutes acceptance of the contract -- because it seems reasonable to think that not paying the required deposit means that the contract wasn't accepted.

I'm glad that the school has not only committed to making things right with this family but is going to consider better communication about its contract, keeping in mind that not everyone has the same background and knowledge.

This is your aspirational take on what should happen, not an accurate statement of the law.

And once again, you have no idea whether it is buried in the contract or not, because she didn't read it.

The PP I replied to said that the school's actions were "appropriate." I am saying they were not. Discretion is an important part of rule enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t sign contracts if you can’t pay your bills.

Unsophisticated people are not really able to understand a contract like that especially if it is very unintuitive. The mom says that she assumed it would be something more like a month or two of tuition. She also thought that it would be reasonable to make her acceptance contingent on the aid package - and the fact that they made her sign the agreement without knowing the aid was pretty exploitative. Even colleges don’t do it that way.

The mom said that she didn't read the contract. It doesn't matter if it was "unintuitive" if she didn't read it. She assumed it said something that it didn't. Not sure how that's the school's fault.

The article also said that there was an opportunity for her to withdraw after the financial aid decision, but that she didn't do so. Again, not sure why the school should be responsible for that.

Because the premise of such contracts that bind you to pay for the whole year, even if you do not attend, or pay a deposit, is exploitative in the extreme. The parent's mistake highlights the root of the problem, which is not of her making, but rather of the greedy and grasping maneuvers that many private schools resort to.

If you think about this honestly for about 3 second, you should be able to figure out why it is entirely appropriate for someone who accepts a spot at a school to be liable for the entire year's tuition.

Or maybe you won't be able to. But that's on you, not the nature of the contract. It's not a difficult concept.

But it is incumbent on the school -- the party with more information, experience, and power -- to make that abundantly explicit, not just buried in the small print of the contract. A school that is serious about diversity needs to recognize that means prospective parents will have a diverse understanding of how contracts work and ability to read dense legalese. It's also the school's job to be explicit about what constitutes acceptance of the contract -- because it seems reasonable to think that not paying the required deposit means that the contract wasn't accepted.

I'm glad that the school has not only committed to making things right with this family but is going to consider better communication about its contract, keeping in mind that not everyone has the same background and knowledge.

This is your aspirational take on what should happen, not an accurate statement of the law.

And once again, you have no idea whether it is buried in the contract or not, because she didn't read it.

PP wasn't trying to be accurate re: the law, they were trying to show that unless you want to be seen as the aggressor, you leave it be.

Right. The school is free to behave like this; and free to then go out of business when everyone is universally appalled and pulls donations and students.

I think this is the crux. The school was within its legal rights, given Maryland's absurd laws as regards private school contracts in particular. However, the parent body and the community at large is within its rights to point out the disconnect between the school's stated values and its actions. SSFS is competing in a market, and they claim to offer a unique product -- high quality education infused with Quaker values.

If they don't actually behave in a way that builds trust with their parent community, and that includes acting in accordance with their stated values, then the parent community, alumni, and the larger community can and will withdraw support.

I also want to really underscore what a PP said about a school's commitment to diversity. SSFS prides itself on "Equity, Justice, and Belonging." They have three staff working on the issue, and it's a selling point for a lot of parents. Within that frame, there are going to be parents who have less understanding of contract law, and with less exposure to highly transactional arrangements. You can't claim to center an approach of "Letting our Lives Speak" while simultaneously retreating behind legalese when someone is confused or misinformed.