Advice on dispute with a private school please

[Vaud]

Jasandjules said:

Anyways, can someone help me out with the exact date that the OP needed to cancel by. "A Term". I don't know what a term is exactly- spoke to a teacher but her school is "unusual" so she couldn't help me either. I know I am looking silly here as it is obvious to many of you but in my defence I don't have children and school was rather a long time ago!

A term would have been defined on the web site. A term is a period that would be generally accepted to be in line with 1/3 of the school year (Sept-Dec, Jan-April, April-July) and I'm with BV, would not need to be a defined phrase.

Anyhow, if it went to mediation, I'm sure the school would state that they would accept the minimal length of the term so as to appear reasonable. It is fair from a contract that the OP knew which dates he was committing his offspring to school for?

[JustinP1]

R2FU said:

If so does a full terms fees for educational services we did not receive plus a punitive rate of interest reflect their real costs or are we into the realms of them looking to levy a penalty...

...Basically, I'm not blameless here, and as you can hopefully see I am looking to reach some compromise (even if it is just them waiving the several hundred pounds of interest they're claiming) and am trying to find an angle to come from.

Breadvan72 said:

...You are bang to rights, OP. Pay up.

Breadvan72 said:

Justin makes the keen amateur's error...

Breadvan - after a couple of rounds of abuse from you and what eccles said, I was quite happy leaving the thread as it was. However, as you've brought me into it again (as if I'm the only person who has shared my view) and mentioned my mistakes yet again I do want to explain where I'm at:

Breadvan, even if I started now I am humble enough to know that I would probably never have the legal knowledge and litigation experience you currently have.

I am even humble enough to know that my University of Manchester Degree where I was lectured, examined and graded on contract law and consumer laws was probably not the same standard of your Oxford degree, let alone all your further training.

As such, all I did was recount the tactics I used to get a positive result it what on the face of it seems to be a very similar situation, so the OP can see if there are any similarities in his situation. I've not told him what he should or shouldn't do.

However, you've told the OP that he must pay a contractual charge plus 18% interest - £3000 no less - without the knowledge of what the exact wording of the notice term, its context in the contract, what the exact notice period was, or even how much notice he gave.

As I've requoted, the OP is a PH member of ten years plus, and he wanted a bit of help where if nothing else he wanted to see if he could save a few hundred quid of what on the face of it seems a punitive interest charge.

I think the OP may have a more hope than you've offered if the contract is at least viewed and pertinent facts of the matter are ascertained.

I had no intention of stepping on your toes.

Edited by JustinP1 on Sunday 20th September 21:11

[anonymous-user]

R2FU said:

Hi, hoping someone suitably qualified out there can guide me.


... missed letting them know in the required timescales (one term's notice) that my daughter wouldn't be attending.

...

But my questions are these:

Is it correct that regardless of what of what their terms and conditions say, they are only entitled to seek to recover actual costs they've incurred?

If so does a full terms fees for educational services we did not receive plus a punitive rate of interest reflect their real costs or are we into the realms of them looking to levy a penalty, which I'm told they are not legally entitled to do?
...

The OP specifically asks for advice from someone suitably qualified. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that I am suitably qualified, on the basis that I have practised law for almost 30 years and am listed in the big boring book of lawyers as an education law specialist. I do not know if anyone else who has posted on the thread is suitably qualified. This does not mean that I am right. It may mean that the OP might find my advice to be helpful, but it is only advice, and he can follow the advice or reject it, as he wishes.

The OP askes two specific questions. The answer to the first question is no. The claim is not for costs incurred.

This answer invalidates the second question. The correct question should be - are a term's fees recoverable for failure to give the contractual notice to end the contract? The answer to this is yes. This is not a complex issue, and the answer to the question is not a complex answer. The interest is high, but higher rates are regularly recovered on, for example, loan agreements.

If the OP prefers to follow the advice of those who may or may not be suitably qualified, and who appear to wish to make the simple complex, that's up to him.

[JustinP1]

Breadvan72 said:

If the OP prefers to follow the advice of those who may or may not be suitably qualified, and who appear to wish to make the simple complex, that's up to him.

Quite.

And if he prefers to take the advice of someone who has made it so simple that the facts of the matter don't matter as to whether he may not be lawfully liable for a £3000 bill, then he can do that too.

There was no need for all the unpleasantness of the first couple of pages really!

[anonymous-user]

Jasandjules said:

Vaud said:

Other clauses would not invalidate that clause.

Possibly. Possibly not.

Anyways, can someone help me out with the exact date that the OP needed to cancel by. "A Term". I don't know what a term is exactly- spoke to a teacher but her school is "unusual" so she couldn't help me either. I know I am looking silly here as it is obvious to many of you but in my defence I don't have children and school was rather a long time ago!

A term is a school term. It's one third of a school year. It's not a technical term. No sensible Judge would have the slightest difficulty in understanding the very basic concept of a term's notice.

I agree with Vaud that a clause of a contract that might be unreasonable would not by virtue of that invalidate another clause. If you have some authority for the contrary proposition, do please share it. I don't see any need to dwell on every clause of the contract. The OP has told us the relevant clause. The deal is: give a term's notice or pay a term's fees. Not really a matter for the Supreme Court or a Vinerian Scholarship essay.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 20th September 21:50

[Sheepshanks]

Breadvan72 said:

The OP specifically asks for advice from someone suitably qualified.

This is the Internet. Everyone is suitably qualified to give advice.

Breadvan72 said:

If the OP prefers to follow the advice of those who may or may not be suitably qualified, and who appear to wish to make the simple complex, that's up to him.

Well, compared to just paying up in full, there doesn't appear to much of a downside.

[anonymous-user]

The downside is stress, hassle, waste of valuable time, exposure to a costs order for running an unreasonable defence. Also, cost to the taxpayer of indulging the fancies of the litigious. Delay to litigants with more deserving cases.

[JustinP1]

Breadvan72 said:

The OP has told us the relevant clause. The deal is: give a term's notice or pay a term's fees. Not really a matter for the Supreme Court or a Vinerian Scholarship essay.

Breadvan - please take this in the respectful way it is intended:

The OP has told us what *he* thinks is the relevant clause of what he says are pages of terms. As you say - amateurs aren't always right.

We don't know if the deal actually is 'give a term's notice or pay a term's fees' - we don't know what the contract says.

They may have added something into the contract which affects the fairness of that - even if that is said. Again we just don't know, do we, to safely say he is liable to pay £3000?

Example:

The OP says they are taking his deposit *plus* a term's fees. He would have been better off if his kid just went, or actually if he gave notice for the Spring term as presumably he'd get his deposit back. He's being punished for non-attendance. The purpose of that would be a deterrent - ergo a penalty.

Edited by JustinP1 on Sunday 20th September 22:00

[Jasandjules]

Breadvan72 said:

A term is a school term. It's one third of a school year. It's not a technical term. No sensible Judge would have the slightest difficulty in understanding the very basic concept of a term's notice.

That is fine by me. What is the exact date? That is all I am asking as I can't work it out. If it is 01 April then at least the OP knows that if he cancelled on or after 02 April your view is he is bang to rights.

Mind, I can't even recall and I am not re-reading the thread now either, if the OP has said what date he cancelled.

breadvan82 said:

I agree with Vaud that a clause of a contract that might be unreasonable would not by virtue of that invalidate another clause. If you have some authority for the contrary proposition, do please share it.

Well, it's been an awfully long time since I looked into contract law, but I was thinking of a severability clause - i.e. Vaud's answer was not black and white. It is possible, though remote, to invalidate a contract.

[anonymous-user]

Read the opening post. The school is claiming the balance of the term's fees. That means the fees less the deposit. It is not claiming the deposit on top. If you are going to encourage the OP to chase rainbows, you could at least focus on what the facts are, not some makey uppy ones that suit your arguments.

Anyway, OP, I'm out. The wannabes and pretendy lawyers (there is at least one of each on this thread, as far as I can see) can carry on debating angelic pin-dancing without any bothersome interruptions from the boring types interested in mundane practical reality.

[JustinP1]

Breadvan72 said:

Anyway, OP, I'm out. The wannabes and pretendy lawyers (there is at least one of each on this thread, as far as I can see) can carry on debating angelic pin-dancing without any bothersome interruptions from the boring types interested in mundane practical reality.

The mundane practical reality like what the contract actually says?

So for the avoidance of doubt, before you go - you still advise the OP that he should 'pay up' £3000 plus 18% per annum interest because he is 'bang to rights'?

Edited by JustinP1 on Sunday 20th September 22:22

[anonymous-user]

Jasandjules said:

breadvan82 said:

I agree with Vaud that a clause of a contract that might be unreasonable would not by virtue of that invalidate another clause. If you have some authority for the contrary proposition, do please share it.

Well, it's been an awfully long time since I looked into contract law, but I was thinking of a severability clause - i.e. Vaud's answer was not black and white. It is possible, though remote, to invalidate a contract.

Pope observed that a little learning is a dangerous thing, and he was right. You appear to be confusing a number of topics. A contract may be invalid (although that is not the term usually used) for a variety of reasons, but the fact that one part of a contract is unenforceable for some reason does not kill the whole contract. The law strives to uphold contracts in most instances.

For example, an employment clause that contains an unreasonable restrictive covenant does not thereby become wholly unenforceable. A sales contract that has an unfair limitation of liability clause does not stop being a sales contract. In employment contracts, there is sometimes a clause that states that if one part of the contract is unenforceable, the rest isn't, but that is merely a recitation of the usual legal position. Distinct promises within a contract can be severed, applying a test that is not relevant to this dispute.

Serious point: If you are relying on a distant memory of a contract law course, as Justin also appears to be, do you think it wise to encourage the OP to think he has an argument? I do contract law day in, day out. I've written stuff published by OUP on severing contracts. I don't base my understanding on this stuff on some lectures that I sat in long ago.

[JustinP1]

Breadvan72 said:

Serious point: If you are relying on a distant memory of a contract law course, as Justin also appears to be, do you think it wise to encourage the OP to think he has an argument? I do contract law day in, day out. I've written stuff published by OUP on severing contracts. I don't base my understanding on this stuff on some lectures that I sat in long ago.

Aw st, me again.

I've already said that your knowledge and qualifications are far better than mine. You don't know when you've won a point do you!

This issue isn't your knowledge because you know all that stuff. It's what the contract actually says, because you don't know that stuff.

[GC8]

Breadvan72 said:

More grumpy, but not that old. More goggly eyed loony as well. Cars all rusty Brit stheaps.

Am disappoint. I expected your nose to be more bulbous and a good deal more redder...

[Jasandjules]

Breadvan72 said:

Serious point: If you are relying on a distant memory of a contract law course, as Justin also appears to be, do you think it wise to encourage the OP to think he has an argument? I do contract law day in, day out. I've written stuff published by OUP on severing contracts. I don't base my understanding on this stuff on some lectures that I sat in long ago.

Please point out where I have encouraged the OP to proceed with his case on the basis that there may be a severability question.

[Vaud]

Sadly this has all turned into a rather internalised argument, sans OP.

[Jasandjules]

Vaud said:

Sadly this has all turned into a rather internalised argument, sans OP.

Indeed, but hopefully he will come back and report how he got on. Regardless of which way it falls.

[ORD]

BV has the characteristic that a lot of people call 'Not suffering fools gladly'. The problem with that is that it's a hairs breadth away from the characteristic 'Grumpy git'

He's obviously right, though, about the situation here. Absent some Known Unknown in the contract (like it also requiring that someone off the Queen before relying on any liquidated damages), the OP is bang to rights.

All this said, if the OP wants proper legal advice, he should stump up £500 for someone borderline competent to spend a couple of hours looking at it. Probably not really worth it given the sums involved, but free advice isn't real advice.

[JustinP1]

ORD said:

BV...
He's obviously right, though, about the situation here. Absent some Known Unknown in the contract... the OP is bang to rights.

He would have been right if that's what he said. But, to be fair, he didn't. The issue is:

Centurion07 said:

The issue is NOBODY here has seen the contract yet you're telling the OP to just pay up and that he doesn't have a case based on no more than the definition of what constitutes "a term" when used in a contract with a school. There may be other things in that contract that COULD be argued, but without seeing it,none of us, you included,can't say.

A number of posters have said that same thing, but I chose Centurion07 as he was the first person on the thread to get a slap-down despite bringing up two very pertinent points in a very reasonable way.

And, he is totally right.

Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 21st September 11:27

[AyBee]

ORD said:

BV has the characteristic that a lot of people call 'Not suffering fools gladly'. The problem with that is that it's a hairs breadth away from the characteristic 'Grumpy git'

He's obviously right, though, about the situation here. Absent some Known Unknown in the contract (like it also requiring that someone off the Queen before relying on any liquidated damages), the OP is bang to rights.

All this said, if the OP wants proper legal advice, he should stump up £500 for someone borderline competent to spend a couple of hours looking at it. Probably not really worth it given the sums involved, but free advice isn't real advice.

I'm not entirely sure why Justin is getting so much abuse, all he's said to the OP is get someone with more knowledge than yourself to have a look over the contract. I'm assuming the OP has very little legal knowledge here and this is why he's come here for some help. IANAL either, but I'd certainly get someone who knew more than I do to look over the contract before handing over £3,000 to make sure that I couldn't get away with paying less and that's exactly what Justin has advised.

Out of interest (since IANAL ), if the OP signed the contract within the terms notice (i.e. signing date to beginning of term was < 1 term), is it still enforceable since he couldn't possibly be expected to give a terms notice when he entered the contract?