Advice on dispute with a private school please
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
There was no grammatical error. The meaning of the sentence in question was and is clear. The usage is commonplace. See for example "Sandhurst produces army officers, Caltech produces scientists, and INSEAD produces useless MBA f
kwits". You perhaps don't like the mode of expression, but there was no mistake.
You usage of "as such" is grammatically incorrect, and very poor style, to boot. You should have written "so" or "therefore" in place of "as such". I would also insert "that" after "assumed", but that is a matter of style, not grammar.
"Sandhurst produces army officers" I'm ok with, and would be the same sort of thing as "Grammar schools producing educated people". "Grammar schools producing sentences" will never be acceptable. kwits". You perhaps don't like the mode of expression, but there was no mistake. You usage of "as such" is grammatically incorrect, and very poor style, to boot. You should have written "so" or "therefore" in place of "as such". I would also insert "that" after "assumed", but that is a matter of style, not grammar.
I (and others) have noticed you have some difficulty in accepting that you have slipped up
JustinP1 said:
.... The school entrapped the OP by burying important cancellation terms and he believed that his deposit of £750 would be lost if he defaulted. From first hand reading of the documents I can see how that happened.
Your current client also doesn't want to keep to their 'promise' of giving a term's notice to pull their child from school. They'd rather pay your rightly substantial fees than do so. I would suggest that what you are advising is pushing back a bit in order to get settlement?
In my case, the parents have an arguable case that the school breached its contractual obligations with regard to provision of education and pastoral care for the child. It's not a slam dunker on either side. It will probably carve up at around the fifty fifty mark. The OP's case was one in which the OP failed to perform an obligation. The school did not fail to perform any relevant obligation. That is why it still looks to me like the OP had no defence other than a defence based on nuisance and attrition, and in that he succeeded in obtaining a reduction of the payment to be made to the school, so yay him, yay you, yay JandJ.
BV, I'm not using 'entrapped' with any legal bent, just the common English usage - and that adequately describes the situation. So, please keep your hair on!
The OP paid the price for not reading past ten pages of disclaimers and other general school rules to get to the key information, and then would still be expected to trawl the internet for the actual date and the actual fee. Was that fair of the school? We can agree to disagree.
Filing a defence to a claim against you is not 'buggeration' or attrition. All Jason and I did was bring up simple aspects of law that the school and their solicitors could have ably won in court if they were as bks as you say.
In your current similar case, your clients know full well that they 'promised' to give a term's notice or pay fees. Is it moral to do the same thing that the OP has done and put forward a legal argument to suggest halfway settlement is fairer?
You are quite vociferous in your condemnation of the OP, his situation and anyone who helped him, but your bias in doing that is blindingly obvious.
The OP paid the price for not reading past ten pages of disclaimers and other general school rules to get to the key information, and then would still be expected to trawl the internet for the actual date and the actual fee. Was that fair of the school? We can agree to disagree.
Filing a defence to a claim against you is not 'buggeration' or attrition. All Jason and I did was bring up simple aspects of law that the school and their solicitors could have ably won in court if they were as b
ks as you say. In your current similar case, your clients know full well that they 'promised' to give a term's notice or pay fees. Is it moral to do the same thing that the OP has done and put forward a legal argument to suggest halfway settlement is fairer?
You are quite vociferous in your condemnation of the OP, his situation and anyone who helped him, but your bias in doing that is blindingly obvious.
Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 15th October 11:38
I no longer have any idea what you are on about, Justin. The points you have explained as being the OP's defences are bad points. On the basis of what you have said, the OP's best argument was simply to point at the PoC and say that the claim, as pleaded, was bad. I would guess that this point would not have won the day (as judges low down in the hierarchy are quite forgiving of bad pleading if, insofar as they can discern it, the claimant has the better case).
The role of the court is not to sit back and take a view on what would have been nice or fair. It applies a bit more rigor and systematic reasoning than that, even if it always has an eye to the "merits". The fact that the OP didnt read the contract is irrelevant. To a lot of points like this, contract law says "Who cares?!".
The role of the court is not to sit back and take a view on what would have been nice or fair. It applies a bit more rigor and systematic reasoning than that, even if it always has an eye to the "merits". The fact that the OP didnt read the contract is irrelevant. To a lot of points like this, contract law says "Who cares?!".
JustinP1 said:
BV, I'm not using 'entrapped' with any legal bent, just the common English usage - and that adequately describes the situation. So, please keep your hair on!
The OP paid the price for not reading past ten pages of disclaimers and other general school rules to get to the key information, and then would still be expected to trawl the internet for the actual date and the actual fee. Was that fair of the school? We can agree to disagree.
Filing a defence to a claim against you is not 'buggeration' or attrition. All Jason and I did was bring up simple aspects of law that the school and their solicitors could have ably won in court if they were as bks as you say.
In your current similar case, your clients know full well that they 'promised' to give a term's notice or pay fees. Is it moral to do the same thing that the OP has done and put forward a legal argument to suggest halfway settlement is fairer?
You are quite vociferous in your condemnation of the OP, his situation and anyone who helped him, but your bias in doing that is blindingly obvious.
Chewbacca defense. It never fails!The OP paid the price for not reading past ten pages of disclaimers and other general school rules to get to the key information, and then would still be expected to trawl the internet for the actual date and the actual fee. Was that fair of the school? We can agree to disagree.
Filing a defence to a claim against you is not 'buggeration' or attrition. All Jason and I did was bring up simple aspects of law that the school and their solicitors could have ably won in court if they were as b
ks as you say. In your current similar case, your clients know full well that they 'promised' to give a term's notice or pay fees. Is it moral to do the same thing that the OP has done and put forward a legal argument to suggest halfway settlement is fairer?
You are quite vociferous in your condemnation of the OP, his situation and anyone who helped him, but your bias in doing that is blindingly obvious.
Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 15th October 11:38
JustinP1 said:
...
In your current similar case, your clients know full well that they 'promised' to give a term's notice or pay fees. Is it moral to do the same thing that the OP has done and put forward a legal argument to suggest halfway settlement is fairer?
...
This suggests that you know little about the law of contract. If the school repudiates the contract, then the parents' obligation to give a stipulated period of notice of termination of the contract is extinguished. On the facts (you tell me that facts matter, and so they do) the parents have a respectable but not sure fire case that the school repudiated the contract. On the OP's very simple facts, he had no such case. In your current similar case, your clients know full well that they 'promised' to give a term's notice or pay fees. Is it moral to do the same thing that the OP has done and put forward a legal argument to suggest halfway settlement is fairer?
...
The two cases are not similar. They share a broadly similar background, but are very different. I mention that because, like many amateur lawyers, you appear to misunderstand the doctrine of precedent, and appear to think that the law works by finding a case that is about very roughly the same sort of thing as another case, and saying "snap". That is not how the law works.
RobinOakapple said:
Breadvan72 said:
There was no grammatical error. The meaning of the sentence in question was and is clear. The usage is commonplace. See for example "Sandhurst produces army officers, Caltech produces scientists, and INSEAD produces useless MBA fkwits". You perhaps don't like the mode of expression, but there was no mistake.
You usage of "as such" is grammatically incorrect, and very poor style, to boot. You should have written "so" or "therefore" in place of "as such". I would also insert "that" after "assumed", but that is a matter of style, not grammar.
"Sandhurst produces army officers" I'm ok with, and would be the same sort of thing as "Grammar schools producing educated people". "Grammar schools producing sentences" will never be acceptable. kwits". You perhaps don't like the mode of expression, but there was no mistake. You usage of "as such" is grammatically incorrect, and very poor style, to boot. You should have written "so" or "therefore" in place of "as such". I would also insert "that" after "assumed", but that is a matter of style, not grammar.
I (and others) have noticed you have some difficulty in accepting that you have slipped up
As for sentence production, by the way, are you not familiar with the great engineering works of Molesworth and Peason?
ORD said:
The fact that the OP didnt read the contract is irrelevant. To a lot of points like this, contract law says "Who cares?!".
L'Estrange v Graucob, innit. By the way, the Estate of L'Estrange is even more litigious than Justin! The estate produces (I choose my words advisedly) lots of cases. I had a bit of one a few years ago. It was about foreshore and shellfish rights, and it was very bonkers. ORD said:
I agree with BV72. At this stage, there's no real upside for the school in reaching a compromise. Chance for a big reduction has probably gone, but there's always scope for a bit of negotiation - not paying their legal costs, for example.
You were wrong.Yes, you and BV say that the defence was rubbish - neither of you have seen any of the paperwork the defences are based upon not have you seen the actual defence. The school's solicitor's are in an informed place to know all the facts.
Only you and Breadvan are still arguing that you've actually been right all along.
Every other poster has taken the view that what happened for the OP was most likely the correct outcome.
If it makes you and Breadvan feel better to accept that Jason and I only got a good result for the OP because I am mad, delusional, foolish and the school's solicitors were bamboozled by a rubbish defence, then I genuinely wish you well, and do hope you can make something productive with your abundance of sour grapes.
JustinP1 said:
You were wrong.
Yes, you and BV say that the defence was rubbish - neither of you have seen any of the paperwork the defences are based upon not have you seen the actual defence. The school's solicitor's are in an informed place to know all the facts.
Only you and Breadvan are still arguing that you've actually been right all along.
Every other poster has taken the view that what happened for the OP was most likely the correct outcome.
A simple headcount is not the best way to determine whether a legal argument is a good or bad one. If it was, I would bring all my mates to every hearing (and would probably lose to far more popular, but less capable, lawyers).Yes, you and BV say that the defence was rubbish - neither of you have seen any of the paperwork the defences are based upon not have you seen the actual defence. The school's solicitor's are in an informed place to know all the facts.
Only you and Breadvan are still arguing that you've actually been right all along.
Every other poster has taken the view that what happened for the OP was most likely the correct outcome.
I think what I said at the outset was fair enough. It would have been the right advice on the basis of the facts as then known to me. If I had known that the school's pleading was horrendous, I would probably have said "You still have a decent chance of getting a reasonable compromise, but I wouldnt push it to trial". I imagine that is exactly what you said. The only difference between us is that you think your legal arguments were good, whereas BV and I think they were crap.
Breadvan72 said:
JustinP1 said:
...In your current similar case, your clients know full well that they 'promised' to give a term's notice or pay fees. Is it moral to do the same thing that the OP has done and put forward a legal argument to suggest halfway settlement is fairer?
"Justin, you know nothing, you don't know this, you make the 'classic mistake'... yawn..." What I also understand from this thread is that even if you are asked a direct question you will go off on all kinds of tangents and belittle the poster rather than provide a direct answer.
I have great respect for your knowledge, but your constant stream of presumptions that posters know nothing and the tactic of self-elevation through personal attacks got tiring a while back.
ORD said:
I think what I said at the outset was fair enough. It would have been the right advice on the basis of the facts as then known to me...
The only difference between us is that you think your legal arguments were good, whereas BV and I think they were crap.
No. The only difference between us is that you think your legal arguments were good, whereas BV and I think they were crap.
The difference between you and Breadvan and others such as myself, Jas, Centurion, johnfm and a number of others is that the latter group warned against giving advice until the facts such as the contract and the claim were known.
I think it's pretty indisputable that the latter group were proven correct in that assertion.
But again, it's still only BV and you still choosing to fight the fight...
Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 15th October 12:47
singlecoil said:
I hold a very different opinion, and would much prefer BV and his 'side' to give it a rest.
I have to say I'm inclined to agree. The 'legal' eagles seem intent on a war to be won by name dropping, arrogance and childish demeaning of the grammar of those with the audacity to challenge even though the English communicated exactly what was meant.Sometimes in the world of litigation those locked in the 'bubble' assume conflict is the game and as far as keeping up the 'billable hours' is concerned it works for them at the expense of everyone else in the game.
Occasionally 'reverse' or neutral can be a wise gear selection. My old law lecturer used to say "You'll catch more wasps with honey than you ever will with vinegar"
I am sorry that you are so bitter about the profession that, perhaps, you failed to enter. Maybe you should have studied harder on that law course. You adopt the typical PH assumption that lawyers care only for billable hours, and not for just outcomes. The contrary is often the case (not with all lawyers, but with some). My take on litigation is that it is dreadful stuff, and to be avoided if at all possible. I advise my clients to avoid litigating more often than not. I could be a lot better off if I did not give such advice.
The grammar sideline is a bit of merriment, triggered by Singlecoil's assertion that he went to a good grammar school. The accuracy of that assertion was placed in doubt by his poor written English.
As for name dropping, are you aware that Molesworth and Peason are fictional characters? In shorter words, that means that they are made up people and do not exist. HTH.
The grammar sideline is a bit of merriment, triggered by Singlecoil's assertion that he went to a good grammar school. The accuracy of that assertion was placed in doubt by his poor written English.
As for name dropping, are you aware that Molesworth and Peason are fictional characters? In shorter words, that means that they are made up people and do not exist. HTH.
I will execute a contract in triplicate, signed with the blood of freshly slaughtered Basildon virgins* to warrant, recite, affirm, evince, assert, advow and accept that Justin is right about everything and is never wrong, because peace is pleasant and strife is silly.
My only condition is that Justin goes on a course about understanding the difference between an attack on something stupid that a person says and an attack on the person that says the stupid thing. Others can go on a course called "it's just some random people talking about some stuff on a bit of a car forum that has fk all to do with cars". You have to give a term's notice if you want to drop out of that course.
* There may be a snag, or even a number of snags, with this part of the plan.
My only condition is that Justin goes on a course about understanding the difference between an attack on something stupid that a person says and an attack on the person that says the stupid thing. Others can go on a course called "it's just some random people talking about some stuff on a bit of a car forum that has f
k all to do with cars". You have to give a term's notice if you want to drop out of that course. * There may be a snag, or even a number of snags, with this part of the plan.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff