Originally Posted by Unregistered:
The service was provided in school. But the application specifically advised that they were not provide services unless the license was approved. How is it the fact that they were providing services illegally does not void the contract?
The parents paid the child care provider directly. Parents had no reason to question the legality of provider as one would think since the school had them as contractors were vetted.
If the school allowed services to be provided, were they (the school) unaware of her not being licensed?
If so, I would pay the provider (she did provide the services) and sue the school for a refund of fees.
I don't understand why any of that would void the contract.
Unless the contract said something like
"If I am lying, you don't have to pay".
Otherwise was the services provided somehow a lesser quality than previously thought?
A license doesn't automatically mean poor quality or services should be free.
Are you a parent that owes this provider?
How do you have access to the info (provider's agreement with school etc)?
Is this operating legally or is this really about not wanting to pay for services?