Why give an employer extended notice (30-60-90 days) if they don't have to do the same for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can put it into contracts, but as we all know enforcing any nanny contract in a court of law has never been successfully done before so no one is truly bound by law to one.

Essentially they are Gentlemen's Agreements, just in writing.

This is NOT true. Why do you constantly spout this? Nanny contracts are just as enforceable as any other document that you sign. Do not sign something you don't intend to be bound by.

It IS true. And I'm a different poster, so you may stop pretending it's only one.

If you still believe yourself, please name one single case where a court has ruled that the duration of a nanny job must be upheld.

I'm not pretending anything. One idiot can always find company, so I'm not at all surprised that there's more than one of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can put it into contracts, but as we all know enforcing any nanny contract in a court of law has never been successfully done before so no one is truly bound by law to one.

Essentially they are Gentlemen's Agreements, just in writing.

This is NOT true. Why do you constantly spout this? Nanny contracts are just as enforceable as any other document that you sign. Do not sign something you don't intend to be bound by.

It IS true. And I'm a different poster, so you may stop pretending it's only one.

If you still believe yourself, please name one single case where a court has ruled that the duration of a nanny job must be upheld.

I'm not pretending anything. One idiot can always find company, so I'm not at all surprised that there's more than one of you.

No actual court cases to support your nonsense, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People can put it into contracts, but as we all know enforcing any nanny contract in a court of law has never been successfully done before so no one is truly bound by law to one.

Essentially they are Gentlemen's Agreements, just in writing.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can put it into contracts, but as we all know enforcing any nanny contract in a court of law has never been successfully done before so no one is truly bound by law to one.

Essentially they are Gentlemen's Agreements, just in writing.

This is NOT true. Why do you constantly spout this? Nanny contracts are just as enforceable as any other document that you sign. Do not sign something you don't intend to be bound by.

It IS true. And I'm a different poster, so you may stop pretending it's only one.

If you still believe yourself, please name one single case where a court has ruled that the duration of a nanny job must be upheld.

I'm not pretending anything. One idiot can always find company, so I'm not at all surprised that there's more than one of you.

No actual court cases to support your nonsense, huh?

Hi. I am an former employment lawyer, and I can tell you without a single doubt that a nanny contract for a specified length of time would be absolutely enforceable in court. Now, a court would almost certainly never order that the family actually employ the nanny for the length of the contract, but they would order the family to pay the nanny for the rest of the contract. This is just a basic principle of contract law, and if you don't believe it, there's not really any point discussing it. I'm not going to bother searching Westlaw for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can put it into contracts, but as we all know enforcing any nanny contract in a court of law has never been successfully done before so no one is truly bound by law to one.

Essentially they are Gentlemen's Agreements, just in writing.

This is NOT true. Why do you constantly spout this? Nanny contracts are just as enforceable as any other document that you sign. Do not sign something you don't intend to be bound by.

It IS true. And I'm a different poster, so you may stop pretending it's only one.

If you still believe yourself, please name one single case where a court has ruled that the duration of a nanny job must be upheld.

I'm not pretending anything. One idiot can always find company, so I'm not at all surprised that there's more than one of you.

No actual court cases to support your nonsense, huh?

Hi. I am an former employment lawyer, and I can tell you without a single doubt that a nanny contract for a specified length of time would be absolutely enforceable in court. Now, a court would almost certainly never order that the family actually employ the nanny for the length of the contract, but they would order the family to pay the nanny for the rest of the contract. This is just a basic principle of contract law, and if you don't believe it, there's not really any point discussing it. I'm not going to bother searching Westlaw for you.

Thank you. You're saying a written agreement trumps the "at will" status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
People can put it into contracts, but as we all know enforcing any nanny contract in a court of law has never been successfully done before so no one is truly bound by law to one.

Essentially they are Gentlemen's Agreements, just in writing.


This is NOT true. Why do you constantly spout this? Nanny contracts are just as enforceable as any other document that you sign. Do not sign something you don't intend to be bound by.

It IS true. And I'm a different poster, so you may stop pretending it's only one.

If you still believe yourself, please name one single case where a court has ruled that the duration of a nanny job must be upheld.


I'm not pretending anything. One idiot can always find company, so I'm not at all surprised that there's more than one of you.

No actual court cases to support your nonsense, huh?


Hi. I am an former employment lawyer, and I can tell you without a single doubt that a nanny contract for a specified length of time would be absolutely enforceable in court. Now, a court would almost certainly never order that the family actually employ the nanny for the length of the contract, but they would order the family to pay the nanny for the rest of the contract. This is just a basic principle of contract law, and if you don't believe it, there's not really any point discussing it. I'm not going to bother searching Westlaw for you.

There is no way you're a lawyer. No lawyer would ever guarantee without a "single doubt" that a contract is "absolutely enforceable in court" without reading the contract. It's all about the specifics of the contract and if you can't be bothered to provide proof for your wild presumptions, then you don't know what you're talking about.

Your dismissal of the importance of proof (is it really so hard to search Westlaw?) supports that you're no lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
People can put it into contracts, but as we all know enforcing any nanny contract in a court of law has never been successfully done before so no one is truly bound by law to one.

Essentially they are Gentlemen's Agreements, just in writing.


This is NOT true. Why do you constantly spout this? Nanny contracts are just as enforceable as any other document that you sign. Do not sign something you don't intend to be bound by.

It IS true. And I'm a different poster, so you may stop pretending it's only one.

If you still believe yourself, please name one single case where a court has ruled that the duration of a nanny job must be upheld.


I'm not pretending anything. One idiot can always find company, so I'm not at all surprised that there's more than one of you.

No actual court cases to support your nonsense, huh?


Hi. I am an former employment lawyer, and I can tell you without a single doubt that a nanny contract for a specified length of time would be absolutely enforceable in court. Now, a court would almost certainly never order that the family actually employ the nanny for the length of the contract, but they would order the family to pay the nanny for the rest of the contract. This is just a basic principle of contract law, and if you don't believe it, there's not really any point discussing it. I'm not going to bother searching Westlaw for you.

There is no way you're a lawyer. No lawyer would ever guarantee without a "single doubt" that a contract is "absolutely enforceable in court" without reading the contract. It's all about the specifics of the contract and if you can't be bothered to provide proof for your wild presumptions, then you don't know what you're talking about.

Your dismissal of the importance of proof (is it really so hard to search Westlaw?) supports that you're no lawyer.

Well, what's your opinion?
Can a written agreement trump "at will" status?
Yes or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can put it into contracts, but as we all know enforcing any nanny contract in a court of law has never been successfully done before so no one is truly bound by law to one.

Essentially they are Gentlemen's Agreements, just in writing.

This is NOT true. Why do you constantly spout this? Nanny contracts are just as enforceable as any other document that you sign. Do not sign something you don't intend to be bound by.

It IS true. And I'm a different poster, so you may stop pretending it's only one.

If you still believe yourself, please name one single case where a court has ruled that the duration of a nanny job must be upheld.

I'm not pretending anything. One idiot can always find company, so I'm not at all surprised that there's more than one of you.

No actual court cases to support your nonsense, huh?

Hi. I am an former employment lawyer, and I can tell you without a single doubt that a nanny contract for a specified length of time would be absolutely enforceable in court. Now, a court would almost certainly never order that the family actually employ the nanny for the length of the contract, but they would order the family to pay the nanny for the rest of the contract. This is just a basic principle of contract law, and if you don't believe it, there's not really any point discussing it. I'm not going to bother searching Westlaw for you.

I think the above attorney is right. But nanny employers will argue because they don't want to honor their contract. But the nanny should, right?

[Anonymous]

I wonder what that INA lawyer, Bob King, is telling his nanny employer clients about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can put it into contracts, but as we all know enforcing any nanny contract in a court of law has never been successfully done before so no one is truly bound by law to one.

Essentially they are Gentlemen's Agreements, just in writing.

This is NOT true. Why do you constantly spout this? Nanny contracts are just as enforceable as any other document that you sign. Do not sign something you don't intend to be bound by.

It IS true. And I'm a different poster, so you may stop pretending it's only one.

If you still believe yourself, please name one single case where a court has ruled that the duration of a nanny job must be upheld.

I'm not pretending anything. One idiot can always find company, so I'm not at all surprised that there's more than one of you.

No actual court cases to support your nonsense, huh?

Hi. I am an former employment lawyer, and I can tell you without a single doubt that a nanny contract for a specified length of time would be absolutely enforceable in court. Now, a court would almost certainly never order that the family actually employ the nanny for the length of the contract, but they would order the family to pay the nanny for the rest of the contract. This is just a basic principle of contract law, and if you don't believe it, there's not really any point discussing it. I'm not going to bother searching Westlaw for you.

I think the above attorney is right. But nanny employers will argue because they don't want to honor their contract. But the nanny should, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
People can put it into contracts, but as we all know enforcing any nanny contract in a court of law has never been successfully done before so no one is truly bound by law to one.

Essentially they are Gentlemen's Agreements, just in writing.


This is NOT true. Why do you constantly spout this? Nanny contracts are just as enforceable as any other document that you sign. Do not sign something you don't intend to be bound by.

It IS true. And I'm a different poster, so you may stop pretending it's only one.

If you still believe yourself, please name one single case where a court has ruled that the duration of a nanny job must be upheld.


I'm not pretending anything. One idiot can always find company, so I'm not at all surprised that there's more than one of you.

No actual court cases to support your nonsense, huh?


Hi. I am an former employment lawyer, and I can tell you without a single doubt that a nanny contract for a specified length of time would be absolutely enforceable in court. Now, a court would almost certainly never order that the family actually employ the nanny for the length of the contract, but they would order the family to pay the nanny for the rest of the contract. This is just a basic principle of contract law, and if you don't believe it, there's not really any point discussing it. I'm not going to bother searching Westlaw for you.

There is no way you're a lawyer. No lawyer would ever guarantee without a "single doubt" that a contract is "absolutely enforceable in court" without reading the contract. It's all about the specifics of the contract and if you can't be bothered to provide proof for your wild presumptions, then you don't know what you're talking about.

Your dismissal of the importance of proof (is it really so hard to search Westlaw?) supports that you're no lawyer.

I'm ALSO a lawyer and hardly think the use of the terms 'single doubt' and 'absolutely enforceable in court' indicate that PP isn't a lawyer. It makes sense that such a contract would likely be enforceable in court. You're going to be hard-pressed to find caselaw because 1) most of the cases would likely be settled and thus the judge would never rule on the case and 2) not all judicial decisions are published - particularly by county-level courts where such a case would likely be filed.

It's also worth noting that the contract would likely include a clause that notes that termination for mis-conduct can be effective immediately and would not be subject to whatever notice is provided in the contract. Even if a nanny were to file a claim that proper notice was not given, s/he would face an uphill battle trying to prove there was no misconduct, since it is open to such a broad definition.

[Anonymous]

9:18 is right. And I hardly think that an employer having to prove cause for dismissal would be particularly difficult. And what nannies have the means to fund a robust defense?

The case would settle, one or both parties would give up, and the amounts are likely to only rise to small claims court anyway.

Blustering about enforceability of a contract means little in the real world. Almost no cases will ever get to that point, for all kinds of pragmatic reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9:18 is right. And I hardly think that an employer having to prove cause for dismissal would be particularly difficult. And what nannies have the means to fund a robust defense?

The case would settle, one or both parties would give up, and the amounts are likely to only rise to small claims court anyway.

Blustering about enforceability of a contract means little in the real world. Almost no cases will ever get to that point, for all kinds of pragmatic reasons.

You are clearly not an attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can put it into contracts, but as we all know enforcing any nanny contract in a court of law has never been successfully done before so no one is truly bound by law to one.

Essentially they are Gentlemen's Agreements, just in writing.

This is NOT true. Why do you constantly spout this? Nanny contracts are just as enforceable as any other document that you sign. Do not sign something you don't intend to be bound by.

This is most likely someone from Nanny Biz Review, it is how they sell their crazy A-Z contract

I'm not from any company. I simply have a brain. Totally crazy right? There is absolutely no reason why a nanny contract wouldn't be legally enforceable. Generally it would not be worth the time or hassle to do so, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. People go to civil court all the time for small agreements or promises made between 2 parties. As long as the contract terms are within the law, they can be enforced. Think of all the celebrities with nannies. Do you think those contracts can't be enforced?

You know all those celebrity lawsuits are about wages and/or abuse, not about the agreed upon duration of employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9:18 is right. And I hardly think that an employer having to prove cause for dismissal would be particularly difficult. And what nannies have the means to fund a robust defense?

The case would settle, one or both parties would give up, and the amounts are likely to only rise to small claims court anyway.

Blustering about enforceability of a contract means little in the real world. Almost no cases will ever get to that point, for all kinds of pragmatic reasons.

You are clearly not an attorney.

Nope. I just live in the real world, and have a 30 year career in HR.