Omg no one is taking a nanny contract to court or arbitration so take your pretentious, pedantic contract law somewhere else.

I agree that spritzing used clothes is covered under cleaning up after the kids. It is ridiculous to suggest it's laundry or a duty that could be declined or, as NannyDeb did, that a parent should have to find a new nanny because this particular detail wasn't covered in the contract. I don't consider myself a housekeeper when I clean smashed banana out of the carpet and this is simply the clothing equivalent.

As an aside, the only time I had an internal eye roll was when an MB (years ago) asked me to stain treat and immediately wash all used bibs. Uhh, aren't they supposed to get dirty?

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with the above. Nothing will ever be spelled out in any contract in any business 100%. Treating a stain on a child's clothing that was made by the nanny when she was feeding him is simple common sense. In the law profession it is called, "the spirit of the agreement". You clean up spilled food and that isn't in the contract either.


Cleaning up after the children usually is in the contract, so that covers spilled food. You could say it covers treating stains I suppose, but contract are always up for interpretation, and it sounds like OPs nanny drew a hard line at laundry duties, and she is choosing to hold firm to that line. The "spirit of the agreement" trope is how a lot of nannies end up doing things they never wanted or agreed to do.


I state all of the following as a writer of iron clad contracts.
Incorrect that nothing is ever spelled out 100% in a contract--unless it's a poorly crafted agreement. The purpose of a contract is just that--to get everything written and detailed. And if it went to court, it is adjudicated based on what's written in the terms. There is also something called past performance. Whereby, even if it isn't in the contract, but you started a pattern of doing it, you lead to the "reasonable person's" expectation that you would continue to do so. Or as its called in this forums, job creep.

Second poster, you can say a lot of things, but again... What's written is what rules. There is why contracts are arbitrated--to settle the disputes as terms dictate. No interpretation comes into play because the contract terms say it all--as far as the court is concerned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the above. Nothing will ever be spelled out in any contract in any business 100%. Treating a stain on a child's clothing that was made by the nanny when she was feeding him is simple common sense. In the law profession it is called, "the spirit of the agreement". You clean up spilled food and that isn't in the contract either.

Cleaning up after the children usually is in the contract, so that covers spilled food. You could say it covers treating stains I suppose, but contract are always up for interpretation, and it sounds like OPs nanny drew a hard line at laundry duties, and she is choosing to hold firm to that line. The "spirit of the agreement" trope is how a lot of nannies end up doing things they never wanted or agreed to do.

Not really. There is always commons sense as a PP mentioned. This is simple common sense.

Never said it wasn't common sense. I said she has a right to refuse based on the agreement she made when she took the job. She said no laundry, and she's sticking to it. Of course she's being silly, but it doesn't change the facts. Disagreeing with her choice doesn't change the facts.

NP here and I agree with the earlier posters who felt it was covered under general cleaning up after meals. Nothing will ever be 100% covered in any agreement. In this case, one party feels that spraying stained clothing is part of cleaning up after meals while the other party considers it laundry. I agree with the former, obviously, and as a nanny this is not the hill I would ever die on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the above. Nothing will ever be spelled out in any contract in any business 100%. Treating a stain on a child's clothing that was made by the nanny when she was feeding him is simple common sense. In the law profession it is called, "the spirit of the agreement". You clean up spilled food and that isn't in the contract either.

Cleaning up after the children usually is in the contract, so that covers spilled food. You could say it covers treating stains I suppose, but contract are always up for interpretation, and it sounds like OPs nanny drew a hard line at laundry duties, and she is choosing to hold firm to that line. The "spirit of the agreement" trope is how a lot of nannies end up doing things they never wanted or agreed to do.

Not really. There is always commons sense as a PP mentioned. This is simple common sense.

Never said it wasn't common sense. I said she has a right to refuse based on the agreement she made when she took the job. She said no laundry, and she's sticking to it. Of course she's being silly, but it doesn't change the facts. Disagreeing with her choice doesn't change the facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the above. Nothing will ever be spelled out in any contract in any business 100%. Treating a stain on a child's clothing that was made by the nanny when she was feeding him is simple common sense. In the law profession it is called, "the spirit of the agreement". You clean up spilled food and that isn't in the contract either.

Cleaning up after the children usually is in the contract, so that covers spilled food. You could say it covers treating stains I suppose, but contract are always up for interpretation, and it sounds like OPs nanny drew a hard line at laundry duties, and she is choosing to hold firm to that line. The "spirit of the agreement" trope is how a lot of nannies end up doing things they never wanted or agreed to do.

Not really. There is always commons sense as a PP mentioned. This is simple common sense.