Contract for Nanny

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It seems that any case that was the first of its kind, would make the news. So far no one on this forum has ever heard of a nanny being held financially liable for not upholding a nanny agreement.

And here. Another bait from the desperate nanny.

Desperate for what? I don't need legal advice. If I did, I have plenty of friends who'd want to give it to me pro bono.

I simply said that:
None of us on this forum has ever heard of a nanny being held financially liable for not abiding by a contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that asking someone to support their argument with a source is some desperate ploy to get free legal advice. You're being a bit paranoid OP.

It's the $10,000. shyster woman being paranoid.

[Anonymous]

There's this awesome website that helps you search the internet for all sorts of information. It's called "Google". You just type a few words to start the search and it pulls up millions of hits. Best of all, no J.D. is required.

[Anonymous]

There's this awesome website that helps you search the internet for all sorts of information. It's called "Google". You just type a few words to start the search and it pulls up millions of hits. Best of all, no J.D. is required.

But then nannies would have to do their own work and would have no one to blame when they misread any information they dig up. They'd rather try to con professionals into providing free legal advice and badger them when the professionals call them out for being selfish and stupid.

It's so much more fun that way, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It seems that any case that was the first of its kind, would make the news. So far no one on this forum has ever heard of a nanny being held financially liable for not upholding a nanny agreement.

And here. Another bait from the desperate nanny.

Desperate for what? I don't need legal advice. If I did, I have plenty of friends who'd want to give it to me pro bono.

I simply said that:
None of us on this forum has ever heard of a nanny being held financially liable for not abiding by a contract.

You should check the parents forum where physicians frequently share their professional knowledge. As far as I know, not one of them has demanded any payment before they respond to various questions.

It stands to reason that if anyone does not care to respond (you either don't know or don't have time), you simply don't respond. No one in her right mind makes a silly demand for $10,000, SW, shyster woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It seems that any case that was the first of its kind, would make the news. So far no one on this forum has ever heard of a nanny being held financially liable for not upholding a nanny agreement.

And here. Another bait from the desperate nanny.

Desperate for what? I don't need legal advice. If I did, I have plenty of friends who'd want to give it to me pro bono.

I simply said that:
None of us on this forum has ever heard of a nanny being held financially liable for not abiding by a contract.

You should check the parents forum where physicians frequently share their professional knowledge. As far as I know, not one of them has demanded any payment before they respond to various questions.

It stands to reason that if anyone does not care to respond (you either don't know or don't have time), you simply don't respond. No one in her right mind makes a silly demand for $10,000, SW, shyster woman.

Do any of you really think the "shyster" demanded 10K before responding to questions? C'mon, now. She was just making the point (albeit sarcastically) that the PP's argument (that nanny contracts are not enforceable against nannies) is not one that lawyers can prove or disprove without hours and hours of expensive research. That doesn't mean they won't willingly and freely share their professional knowledge; in fact, several lawyers on this board explained the applicable law quite well.

And the PP who now says her only point was that no one on this board has ever heard of a nanny contract being enforced against the nanny is backpedaling and being totally disingenuous. Her point--made quite clearly--was that nanny contracts are not enforceable. The fact that only one person on this board linked to a case rebutting PP's assertion just means, at most, that parents don't bother to sue very often. Whether or not most parents decide to sue a nanny who breaches her contracgt has no bearing on whether the law says they could sue and win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's this awesome website that helps you search the internet for all sorts of information. It's called "Google". You just type a few words to start the search and it pulls up millions of hits. Best of all, no J.D. is required.

I wouldn't expect to find many nanny contract cases on Google simply because such cases would typically involve small amounts of money and be decided in low-level state courts--possibly even small claims courts--that aren't widely followed by the press or even reported within the trade. Also, a decision holding a nanny financially liable for breach of a contractual term or notice provision wouldn't be newsworthy because, from a legal perspective, it doesn't matter that the defendant was a nanny; it would be a very routine matter of applying well-developed principles of employment law in an entirely routine way. In other words, the fact that a particular law is most often applied against Jane doesn't make application against Susie newsworthy. It just means that plaintiffs tend to sue Jane more often than they sue Susie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It seems that any case that was the first of its kind, would make the news. So far no one on this forum has ever heard of a nanny being held financially liable for not upholding a nanny agreement.

And here. Another bait from the desperate nanny.

Desperate for what? I don't need legal advice. If I did, I have plenty of friends who'd want to give it to me pro bono.

I simply said that:
None of us on this forum has ever heard of a nanny being held financially liable for not abiding by a contract.

You should check the parents forum where physicians frequently share their professional knowledge. As far as I know, not one of them has demanded any payment before they respond to various questions.

It stands to reason that if anyone does not care to respond (you either don't know or don't have time), you simply don't respond. No one in her right mind makes a silly demand for $10,000, SW, shyster woman.

Do any of you really think the "shyster" demanded 10K before responding to questions? C'mon, now. She was just making the point (albeit sarcastically) that the PP's argument (that nanny contracts are not enforceable against nannies) is not one that lawyers can prove or disprove without hours and hours of expensive research. That doesn't mean they won't willingly and freely share their professional knowledge; in fact, several lawyers on this board explained the applicable law quite well.

And the PP who now says her only point was that no one on this board has ever heard of a nanny contract being enforced against the nanny is backpedaling and being totally disingenuous. Her point--made quite clearly--was that nanny contracts are not enforceable. The fact that only one person on this board li
nked to a case rebutting PP's assertion just means, at most, that parents don't bother to sue very often. Whether or not most parents decide to sue a nanny who breaches her contracgt has no bearing on whether the law says they could sue and win.

Feel free to argue the following points:

1. The law says that anyone can sue anyone, unless there's special protection.

2. If the contract contains both a specified term and an at will provision, it is not clear which provision a judge would choose to uphold.

A specified term means that both the employer and employee must complete the term, unless both agree to terminate the contract or there is "cause".

"At will" means that either employer or employee can terminate the contract without cause, as long as the agreed upon notice is given.



Seems odd that so many agency owners are lawyers, and we have this sort of unfortunate confusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It seems that any case that was the first of its kind, would make the news. So far no one on this forum has ever heard of a nanny being held financially liable for not upholding a nanny agreement.

And here. Another bait from the desperate nanny.

Desperate for what? I don't need legal advice. If I did, I have plenty of friends who'd want to give it to me pro bono.

I simply said that:
None of us on this forum has ever heard of a nanny being held financially liable for not abiding by a contract.

You should check the parents forum where physicians frequently share their professional knowledge. As far as I know, not one of them has demanded any payment before they respond to various questions.

It stands to reason that if anyone does not care to respond (you either don't know or don't have time), you simply don't respond. No one in her right mind makes a silly demand for $10,000, SW, shyster woman.

Do any of you really think the "shyster" demanded 10K before responding to questions? C'mon, now. She was just making the point (albeit sarcastically) that the PP's argument (that nanny contracts are not enforceable against nannies) is not one that lawyers can prove or disprove without hours and hours of expensive research. That doesn't mean they won't willingly and freely share their professional knowledge; in fact, several lawyers on this board explained the applicable law quite well.

And the PP who now says her only point was that no one on this board has ever heard of a nanny contract being enforced against the nanny is backpedaling and being totally disingenuous. Her point--made quite clearly--was that nanny contracts are not enforceable. The fact that only one person on this board li
nked to a case rebutting PP's assertion just means, at most, that parents don't bother to sue very often. Whether or not most parents decide to sue a nanny who breaches her contracgt has no bearing on whether the law says they could sue and win.

Feel free to argue the following points:

1. The law says that anyone can sue anyone, unless there's special protection.

2. If the contract contains both a specified term and an at will provision, it is not clear which provision a judge would choose to uphold.

A specified term means that both the employer and employee must complete the term, unless both agree to terminate the contract or there is "cause".

"At will" means that either employer or employee can terminate the contract without cause, as long as the agreed upon notice is given.



Seems odd that so many agency owners are lawyers, and we have this sort of unfortunate confusion.

It appears that agency clients (both parents and nannies), have had the wool pulled over their eyes. How do agencies justify their exorbitant fees if the nannies have no contract term and can easily take off when they've had eno
ugh nonsense at work? What parent wants to be locked into a longterm legal obligation with a nanny she doesn't want anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It seems that any case that was the first of its kind, would make the news. So far no one on this forum has ever heard of a nanny being held financially liable for not upholding a nanny agreement.

And here. Another bait from the desperate nanny.

Desperate for what? I don't need legal advice. If I did, I have plenty of friends who'd want to give it to me pro bono.

I simply said that:
None of us on this forum has ever heard of a nanny being held financially liable for not abiding by a contract.

You should check the parents forum where physicians frequently share their professional knowledge. As far as I know, not one of them has demanded any payment before they respond to various questions.

It stands to reason that if anyone does not care to respond (you either don't know or don't have time), you simply don't respond. No one in her right mind makes a silly demand for $10,000, SW, shyster woman.

Do any of you really think the "shyster" demanded 10K before responding to questions? C'mon, now. She was just making the point (albeit sarcastically) that the PP's argument (that nanny contracts are not enforceable against nannies) is not one that lawyers can prove or disprove without hours and hours of expensive research. That doesn't mean they won't willingly and freely share their professional knowledge; in fact, several lawyers on this board explained the applicable law quite well.

And the PP who now says her only point was that no one on this board has ever heard of a nanny contract being enforced against the nanny is backpedaling and being totally disingenuous. Her point--made quite clearly--was that nanny contracts are not enforceable. The fact that only one person on this board li
nked to a case rebutting PP's assertion just means, at most, that parents don't bother to sue very often. Whether or not most parents decide to sue a nanny who breaches her contracgt has no bearing on whether the law says they could sue and win.

Feel free to argue the following points:

1. The law says that anyone can sue anyone, unless there's special protection.

2. If the contract contains both a specified term and an at will provision, it is not clear which provision a judge would choose to uphold.

A specified term means that both the employer and employee must complete the term, unless both agree to terminate the contract or there is "cause".

"At will" means that either employer or employee can terminate the contract without cause, as long as the agreed upon notice is given.



Seems odd that so many agency owners are lawyers, and we have this sort of unfortunate confusion.

It appears that agency clients (both parents and nannies), have had the wool pulled over their eyes. How do agencies justify their exorbitant fees if the nannies have no contract term and can easily take off when they've had eno
ugh nonsense at work? What parent wants to be locked into a longterm legal obligation with a nanny she doesn't want anymore?

....therefore the "at will" provision to enable the parent OR the nanny to terminate without cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There's this awesome website that helps you search the internet for all sorts of information. It's called "Google". You just type a few words to start the search and it pulls up millions of hits. Best of all, no J.D. is required.

But then nannies would have to do their own work and would have no one to blame when they misread any information they dig up. They'd rather try to con professionals into providing free legal advice and badger them when the professionals call them out for being selfish and stupid.

It's so much more fun that way, you know.

I'm the PP and a nanny. I just don't care enough about prior cases involving employment contracts to look it up.

[Anonymous]

Here's a DCUM little tip for 12:46 ---
Every time you see something you don't know or don't care about, you skip it. No one is holding a gun to your pretty little head telling you that you must care about every post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a DCUM little tip for 12:46 ---
Every time you see something you don't know or don't care about, you skip it. No one is holding a gun to your pretty little head telling you that you must care about every post.

I was explaining why I didn't look it up and that I was a nanny to the PP lumping all nannies together.

I know enough about contract law to not be stressed about it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a DCUM little tip for 12:46 ---
Every time you see something you don't know or don't care about, you skip it. No one is holding a gun to your pretty little head telling you that you must care about every post.

I was explaining why I didn't look it up and that I was a nanny to the PP lumping all nannies together.

I know enough about contract law to not be stressed about it all.

[Anonymous]

Apologies for the double post. Not sure how that happened.