Can a school claw back a discount spanning 9 years?
Discussion
Interested to know if the clause this school is offering is even legal? My answer is to get stuffed, but I'm curious to know how it would stack up in contract law if anyone knows.
School have offered a discount on a 4 and 5 year old.
Clause 4 states in summary that if you move the children to another independent school before year 11 (when they are about 16 I guess) "the balance of the full fees will be charged for the Students time at the school"
In plain English - I pull them out of the school in year 10 because standards have gone to s
t, I get charged some 9 years backdated discount?!?!
That's not a discount, that's an unconditional lock in.
How the hell can that be enforceable in contract law?
DISCLAIMER - I hate private schools but the wife unfortunately doesn't...that said, she pays not me :-)
School have offered a discount on a 4 and 5 year old.
Clause 4 states in summary that if you move the children to another independent school before year 11 (when they are about 16 I guess) "the balance of the full fees will be charged for the Students time at the school"
In plain English - I pull them out of the school in year 10 because standards have gone to s
t, I get charged some 9 years backdated discount?!?!That's not a discount, that's an unconditional lock in.
How the hell can that be enforceable in contract law?
DISCLAIMER - I hate private schools but the wife unfortunately doesn't...that said, she pays not me :-)
Edited by wsn03 on Friday 6th March 14:43
wsn03 said:
I guess that makes sense. You'd have to be pretty dumb to sign that. You basically lose any leverage you have over them to maintain their standards.
Not entirely true. Part of that contract would be that the school maintain a certain level of excellence, so if they are slipping, there will be ground to sue them for breaching the contract. Having said that, I'm not sure how that level can be measured, exam results maybe.Taozzz said:
wsn03 said:
I guess that makes sense. You'd have to be pretty dumb to sign that. You basically lose any leverage you have over them to maintain their standards.
Not entirely true. Part of that contract would be that the school maintain a certain level of excellence, so if they are slipping, there will be ground to sue them for breaching the contract. Having said that, I'm not sure how that level can be measured, exam results maybe.I think it would be hard to argue, various things could happen to make you want to leave:
- kids not making friends / not fitting in
- bullying
- change of culture
- drop in standards
The last one particularly concerns me, because it lets them off the hook for a drop in standards which I guess is why people pay for them in the first place.
I couldn't get my clients to accept a discount on condition that they pay it all back if they ever go with someone else, that bit is just ridiculous
AAGR said:
If you are rich enough to send a child to private school, why not spend a little money getting a lawyer's opinion ?
He's not rich enough. His wife is paying, he's already told us that. 
Unfair Contract Terms is usually when the contract is unbalanced in some way - ie it favours them more than it does you.
wsn03 said:
I couldn't get my clients to accept a discount on condition that they pay it all back if they ever go with someone else, that bit is just ridiculous
Many companies do exactly that. A 12 month subscription is almost always cheaper than 12 x 1 month subscriptions.If I joined a gym with a 12 month discounted rate, I can imagine my options to cancel after 6 months would have some financial penalty.
wsn03 said:
I would definitely think so. I studied contract law and have been involved in many business contracts, have never seen such a clause before
It's basically a lock-in period. What it boils down to is: you can pay for a minimum subscription of 9 years and get a discount, or at any time switch to the standard rate with no ongoing penalty, i.e., you only ever pay what you would have paid. I can see the argument that it's unfair but you're not forced to pay more than you would if you simply selected the flexible option at the time, so I wouldn't argue it's inherently a penalty.Would they ever negotiate? Would they say that:
1. You'd have a no-penalty release if, e.g., OFSTED downgrades the school, they materially change after school facilities, number of subjects on offer, etc.;
2. You can get an exemption if you move more than e.g., 50 miles from the school?
3. You only have to pay a shorter, reasonable notice period or a period in lieu of notice or just a cap on the amount you'd be prepared to pay.
At the end of the day, even if it were blatantly unenforceable, you'd have to deal with the kind of muppets who think it's enforceable - or you might get lucky and be dealing with people who think they can't enforce it or just forget it's there.
otolith said:
Not being a lawyer I have no idea, but is that not the sort of thing that would be considered an unfair contract term?
I don't see why it's unfair. The OP got a discount based staying for an agreed period. The OP decided not to stay for the period so the full amount is payable.wsn03 said:
Interested to know if the clause this school is offering is even legal? My answer is to get stuffed, but I'm curious to know how it would stack up in contract law if anyone knows.
School have offered a discount on a 4 and 5 year old.
Clause 4 states in summary that if you move the children to another independent school before year 11 (when they are about 16 I guess) "the balance of the full fees will be charged for the Students time at the school"
In plain English - I pull them out of the school in year 10 because standards have gone to st, I get charged some 9 years backdated discount?!?!
That's not a discount, that's an unconditional lock in.
How the hell can that be enforceable in contract law?
DISCLAIMER - I hate private schools but the wife unfortunately doesn't...that said, she pays not me :-)
Sorry to tell you but this seems quite in order to me.School have offered a discount on a 4 and 5 year old.
Clause 4 states in summary that if you move the children to another independent school before year 11 (when they are about 16 I guess) "the balance of the full fees will be charged for the Students time at the school"
In plain English - I pull them out of the school in year 10 because standards have gone to s
t, I get charged some 9 years backdated discount?!?!That's not a discount, that's an unconditional lock in.
How the hell can that be enforceable in contract law?
DISCLAIMER - I hate private schools but the wife unfortunately doesn't...that said, she pays not me :-)
Edited by wsn03 on Friday 6th March 14:43
There is no deception by the school. Is there?
You wanted the discount, so committed to the full term.You could have paid the fee without the discount most likely.
You are not compelled to keep the child until the end of the full term but if you don't you must pay the discount back. (no lock in at all just an agreement by you to pay the discount back if you leave).
You have been able to excirse your own free will at all times.
The issue is you only want to pay the discounted rates but do not want to adhere to your part of the agreement to obtain it.
Nothing at all appears to be unfair at all to me.
Rememeber you wanted the discount.
If it's any help. Did you know why the discount was being given and was it made clear to you what would happen if the full term was not adhered to?. That is what you have to concentrate on regarding your argument against paying the discount back.
From the schools side of the argument they will most probably say " well what did he think the discount was for and what led him to think it was anything other than a commitment to the full term".
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff