Advice on dispute with a private school please
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
I notice that those who bang on about the contract are being rather coy about what the magical contract points were.
Not at all. Their terms and other relevant communications extended to 40 pages. I'm not even sure how I would have gone about posting them up. I provided details by email to everyone who asked for them along with an invitation to be quite upfront in telling me to "suck it up" if I was completely out of line. You at no point asked for them. Had you asked I would have been happy to provide them. You are clearly qualified to comment, so I had no reason not to consider any thoughts you might have offered based on knowledge of the facts. Breadvan72 said:
I wonder if we shall ever know? The vague description of them set out above makes them sound a bit like what is technically known in the trade as ballsache (a Latin term), but all is mysterious as apparently the arguments are so amazing that they have to be a secret. From the narrative it sounds to me like the school did a deal on a commercial basis rather than litigate a lot of flim flam with a stubborn litigant egged on by keen "and another thing!" amateur advisers.
Who is more amateur, those who made an assessment based on possession of the full facts, or those who rely solely on supposition? I'll take so-called amateur advice every time if it is based on fact-based logical reasoning vs egotistical bluster from a so-called professional. I have no doubt if I ever engaged you on a chargeable basis you would bring a different level of rigour to your reasoning. YAALBYANML so I have no complaint. As for the resolution being some kind of dirty little commercial settlement, rather than a victory based on the upholding of the purity of the law. I'm sure you're not actually so naïve as to suggest this isn't how these things work. It is after all a commercial matter at the heart of this, not some heavy-duty criminal or human rights issue.
Breadvan72 said:
So, if the OP has bluffed his way out of adhering to his promises, bully for him and his expert team, and for those who think that practicality and the bottom line are all that matter, and think that behaving like a straightforward person who keeps his promises is for silly people, yippee!
Yes, once again I repeat that I accept some blame here. I changed my mind. I missed a deadline. They tried to impose punitive charges on me without taking any steps to mitigate, based on a contract that at best contravened a number of key consumer rights regulations, at worst deliberately tricked people into signing up to a set of terms it was actually impossible for them to meet. So with a bit of help, I pushed back and met them half way without having to trouble the courts. They have £1750 of my money for their trouble. I have learned an expensive (but not as expensive as it could have been) lesson. I'd suggest we're all grown-ups and have reached a straightforward and equitable commercial settlement that suits all parties.If it helps you to avoid embarrassment to call me silly and those that have provided me with good advice amateur-ish, then go ahead and do your worst and people that care to can form their own opinions.
Edited by R2FU on Monday 5th October 22:10
Breadvan72 said:
So, if the OP has bluffed his way out of adhering to his promises, bully for him and his expert team, and for those who think that practicality and the bottom line are all that matter, and think that behaving like a straightforward person who keeps his promises is for silly people, yippee!
So, PHers helping another for free when he's a litigant in person being sued by big firm of solicitors trying to enforce unlawful penalties for a business is immoral... Breadvan72 two months ago said:
Talking of restraints of trade, guess who got Jenson Button out of his contract with Benetton, back in the day? [/bragging]
...but being paid megabucks to help a multimillionaire get out of one multimillion pound contract to get him into the next is by your own definition 'bragging' material?Is this for real? Someone help me out here.
Edited by JustinP1 on Tuesday 6th October 02:08
Centurion07 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
he didn't win any legal argument.
You know this because....?"I have paid them a (still not trivial) amount ... and I feel comfortable we have landed on a fair and equitable settlement that all parties should be happy with."
Durzel said:
This is becoming a rather poisonous thread. Not sure what is trying to be achieved by goading BV72.
Agreed, so to try and wrap up my own contribution constructively, I would encourage anyone looking for some good advice on legal matters and a full spectrum of views not to hesitate to seek help on here. My experience on this thread has been overwhelmingly positive and, whether contributors have agreed with my position or disagreed, posts have been in the vast majority genuine and constructive. For sure be prepared to have your thinking challenged, but I'd say that can only be a good thing when you're trying to think your way through a problem.So thanks again to all who have contributed, and to Jason and Justin in particular.
photosnob said:
Congratulations OP. Nice to see Justin and J&J helping out a member. Really good result all around.
This times a billion. If the school was happy with the settlement, it was happy with the settlement. Our courts prize settlement above all else and encourage exactly this kind of thing.
It would be different (and in my view fairer) if costs always followed the event (meaning that the party with the stronger case would be more confident about going to trial); but, for small cases, the balance has been struck very much in favour of encourage commercial compromise.
I don't think it's entirely fair for BV72 to point out that the OP didn't act very ethically. I agree with him that trying to worm out of a promise on spurious or irrelevant grounds is pretty poor stuff, but it's within the range of perfectly normal conduct by litigants. Reasonable and ethical people very rarely end up litigating over small amounts of money in the first place!
So the school buries the requirement for a full term's fees in certain circumstances somewhere in 40 pages of contract waffle, and some people here are like "oooh you naughty boy for not keeping your promises". Typical PH it would seem.
If that was the deal the school should have been upfront about it. As it is, they've only themselves to blame.
If that was the deal the school should have been upfront about it. As it is, they've only themselves to blame.
OpulentBob said:
He said this about 10 posts above yours:
"I have paid them a (still not trivial) amount ... and I feel comfortable we have landed on a fair and equitable settlement that all parties should be happy with."
Fair enough. I think that's open to interpretation though isn't it i.e. the school either settled because they couldn't be arsed, or they settled because they realised OP actually has the basis of getting out of the contract completely so they made him an offer he was happy with?"I have paid them a (still not trivial) amount ... and I feel comfortable we have landed on a fair and equitable settlement that all parties should be happy with."
ORD said:
I don't think it's entirely fair for BV72 to point out that the OP didn't act very ethically. I agree with him that trying to worm out of a promise on spurious or irrelevant grounds is pretty poor stuff, but it's within the range of perfectly normal conduct by litigants. Reasonable and ethical people very rarely end up litigating over small amounts of money in the first place!
I entirely agree. And did write something similar (not as eloquent myself) but wanted to keep it positive to get away from the negativity surrounding this. BV is a barrister - who in practise will negotiate for his clients all the time. Justin and J&J helped a member to do that for himself. And I think the criticism Justin came under for trying to help someone was grossly unfair. Their support to the OP has saved him a lot of money. Rather than graciously congratulating Justin he has undermined him again. I have no personal axe to grind - but I think it comes across as petty and vindictive. I think the constant stream off "I'm leaving now" threads are quite self aggrandising and childish as well.
But I still see this a result for PH, and something that should be congratulated. I got some help myself recently. SP&L has some characters - who whilst perhaps well meaning and successful in their careers need to realise that this is just a website and they are just another member. Constantly beating the drum and attacking other members isn't a good thing. I am sometimes shocked when I go into other sections of the site and see that having friendly banter and stating an opinion doesn't result in vitriol.
OP fails to check the notice term and that somehow makes the school borderline dishonest for not being 'upfront'? Of course there was a notice term; the OP didn't ask about it; and the notice term was entirely reasonable, sensible and predictable. If asked to guess the notice period, I would have said 'Probably a school term'.
I've not got any real beef with the OP's approach, but colouring the school as in the wrong is pretty embarrassing.
I've not got any real beef with the OP's approach, but colouring the school as in the wrong is pretty embarrassing.
I doubt very much whether the OP (or anyone else) knows why the school settled. They most probably won't know what the school's solicitors thought of the arguments presented by the OP, or indeed what the school's solicitors advised the school to do.
The contract and the arguments made by the OP were not tested in court, so we don't know which of BV's POV or Justin's POV would ultimately have been more persuasive to the court.
All we actually know is that the school have opted to settle rather than waste any more time and money on the matter.
The contract and the arguments made by the OP were not tested in court, so we don't know which of BV's POV or Justin's POV would ultimately have been more persuasive to the court.
All we actually know is that the school have opted to settle rather than waste any more time and money on the matter.
ORD said:
OP fails to check the notice term and that somehow makes the school borderline dishonest for not being 'upfront'? Of course there was a notice term; the OP didn't ask about it; and the notice term was entirely reasonable, sensible and predictable. If asked to guess the notice period, I would have said 'Probably a school term'.
I've not got any real beef with the OP's approach, but colouring the school as in the wrong is pretty embarrassing.
Got to be aimed at me. I start by assuming the OP is telling the truth. He tells us he didn't know that he was liable (as far as the school was concerned) to pay a full term's fees. So I reject your reading of what I said, and stick by it, and am not even slightly embarrassed by it. If they wanted that much money for a cancellation they should have been absolutely clear about it, and they weren't.I've not got any real beef with the OP's approach, but colouring the school as in the wrong is pretty embarrassing.
40 page contract, FFS!
All was actually know is that the OP has saved a couple of grand. The school have settled and the OP is happy. Legal arguments are just that, arguments that were not required.
LIP crap might be just that. But is seems to have worked. I'd take LIP crap that saves me thousands to highly skilled advise that means I lose out.
LIP crap might be just that. But is seems to have worked. I'd take LIP crap that saves me thousands to highly skilled advise that means I lose out.
RobinOakapple said:
ORD said:
OP fails to check the notice term and that somehow makes the school borderline dishonest for not being 'upfront'? Of course there was a notice term; the OP didn't ask about it; and the notice term was entirely reasonable, sensible and predictable. If asked to guess the notice period, I would have said 'Probably a school term'.
I've not got any real beef with the OP's approach, but colouring the school as in the wrong is pretty embarrassing.
Got to be aimed at me. I start by assuming the OP is telling the truth. He tells us he didn't know that he was liable (as far as the school was concerned) to pay a full term's fees. So I reject your reading of what I said, and stick by it, and am not even slightly embarrassed by it. If they wanted that much money for a cancellation they should have been absolutely clear about it, and they weren't.I've not got any real beef with the OP's approach, but colouring the school as in the wrong is pretty embarrassing.
40 page contract, FFS!
It is funny that people always want both absolute clarity and very short contracts. You usually cannot have both. Unless the subject matter is very simple indeed, it doesnt take long to get to tens of pages.
(All that said, a lot of contracts are needlessly long and superficially complex. I blame people for (a) going to cheap lawyers that rely on old, bad precedents and (b) paying peanuts. If you pay a few hundred squids for a contract, it's likely that you'll get monkeys using peanuts as drafting aids.)
RobinOakapple said:
Got to be aimed at me. I start by assuming the OP is telling the truth. He tells us he didn't know that he was liable (as far as the school was concerned) to pay a full term's fees. So I reject your reading of what I said, and stick by it, and am not even slightly embarrassed by it. If they wanted that much money for a cancellation they should have been absolutely clear about it, and they weren't.
40 page contract, FFS!
40 pages which the OP signed it must be remembered. Seems to me that the OP has rather dodged a bullet here and more by luck than judgement (literally as it turns out). Right result for the OP, and that's all that matters.40 page contract, FFS!
Together comrades we will bankrupt the corrupt independent school system, one £1750 settlement at a time!
photosnob said:
All was actually know is that the OP has saved a couple of grand. The school have settled and the OP is happy. Legal arguments are just that, arguments that were not required.
LIP crap might be just that. But is seems to have worked. I'd take LIP crap that saves me thousands to highly skilled advise that means I lose out.
LIP crap might be just that. But is seems to have worked. I'd take LIP crap that saves me thousands to highly skilled advise that means I lose out.
Especially when that 'highly skilled advise' is delivered in such a manner, and without benefit of sight of the contract.
Quite. As I said, our civil justice system (for sensible reasons) prefers to encourage "quick and dirty" settlement for low-value cases, and the rules are set up to that end. It comes at some cost to justice in purist terms. If you regard litigation as a transaction cost and, for low value cases, a cost to the taxpayer, it makes a great deal of sense to say "We might not always get the right results, but let's just get results quickly and cheaply", and driving settlement is the best way to find the least bad fudge for the parties and the public.
Without sight of the contract and the arguments, this looks to me like precisely such a case. A quick and sensible resolution for both sides, even if not reflecting the likely outcome at trial.
Without sight of the contract and the arguments, this looks to me like precisely such a case. A quick and sensible resolution for both sides, even if not reflecting the likely outcome at trial.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff