View Single Post
Old 02-15-2014, 04:05 PM
SnowDayMom's Avatar
SnowDayMom SnowDayMom is offline Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8

Originally Posted by BabyLuver21 View Post
How about this example?

You enroll in college. You pay your tuition through financial aide. Uh oh, the school closes for inclement weather, and not only that, it's the FIRST WEEK OF CLASS (PANIC NOW!). You didn't get to attend class for that week, and thus missed some assignments. There is NO extension on your assignments, and you don't think you should have to do them, but your teacher says they're still due, so you decide you want to drop the class. BUT, uh oh, you have already been in class for a week now, and NO REFUNDS are given after a certain date (let's pretend it's day 2 of class like at my college). You KNOW you will NOT be completing the class; but you will STILL have to pay the government their loan back! It doesn't matter that you didn't attend the class after 1 week, you're gonna get billed the WHOLE semester. You don't have to like it. It may not even be FAIR, but you signed the document to enroll in classes that you agreed to the terms of your financial aide, and that you agree to pay it back "regardless of whether or not you completed a class, passed the class or didn't pass the class, and whether or not you felt you got a good education. "

The point is, if you want drop-in care, where you ONLY pay for days you use, you need to find drop in care. Keep in mind, sometimes that costs MORE as opposed to a weekly set rate, so thus, by the end of the year? You pay the same or more than you would have been with a set rate.

All kinds of companies, such as Comcast, do things like this too. They offer 360 channels, but you only watch 100 of them. Do you think they refund you for the 260 you don't watch? Nope. It's a package deal. You pay for the whole lot, though you don't use it. They don't care that you don't use it. They just collect their checks, stream in channels, and everyone's on their merry ways.

Your home for rent:
You charge your tenants $1000 per month. Your tenant stays with her boyfriend and doesn't use the premises. You still charge $1000 per month. Is that fair? She's not living there 1/2 the time! Why should she pay?

Perhaps, you had to remodel a bathroom. You still charge your tenant $1000 per month, but she can't use that bathroom and she has the RIGHT to 100% comfortable use of her home. Are you gonna bring down her rent? Nope you are not.

Let's say you want your renter to leave. You don't like her. You tell her, "You have 30 days to get out" On the 16th. Because she was there for 1/2 of month the following month (thru the 15th for example) you still collect the $1000. Should you give her the prorated amount back? Probably, but your contract says that if you have to move to evict, they pay for x amount of rent for that 1/2 month AND as long as it takes you to fill the place up until the end of their lease. Fair? Why should they pay for 2 places???

See, life ain't fair, folks. But it's not fair, because of the people who abuse things.

So Daycare is kinda like the stuff I wrote above. Disagree? Call your phone company RIGHT NOW (while you're in contract) and see if you can get out of your ETF. I dare ya.
I appreciate the effort...but:

COLLEGE CLASS: The only way this comparison possibly is analogous to the daycare-closing-for-snow situation is if they close school SO MUCH that you're able to make the argument that you aren't getting what you paid for. Know what you're paying for? An education (or the specific education of that class, if you're buying by the class). That would have to be a LOT of closing and would be VERY hard to prove that you didn't get the education you paid for. In my opinion, it's a HUGE stretch to say this is a good comparison. And on top of it, here's another reason it doesn't compare: You have an unrelated third party involved--the government. I'm quite sure the government doesn't give a hoot about the quality (or lack of) your education, but they are sure gonna want their money back.

COMCAST: Not a good comparison at all. In that example they have at all times provided what you paid for--whether you use it or not is irrelevant. In the snow day example the daycare WILL NOT provide the service you paid for, even though you as a parent may actually want to use it.

I "rented" a movie from Direct TV, the movie got all screwed up halfway through and I wasn't actually able to watch it (thus I didn't get what I paid for). I called DTV and guess what? They refunded me the money for the movie. Know why? Because I paid for something they DID NOT PROVIDE ME, just like when the daycares close for snow and thus DO NOT PROVIDE me with the childcare for which I paid them.

HOME FOR RENT: Is the same example. They paid and you are AT ALL TIMES willing to let them live there, but they CHOSE not to. COMPLETELY a different example and not applicable here. An example that WOULD be analogous is they pay you the $1000 rent for the whole month and you refuse to let them live there for one of the weeks of the month. Fair now????

BATHROOM REMODEL: Perhaps you're getting close to a good analogy there, because I'm assuming the $1000 covers the rent of the whole house, and you're depriving them of some of the house. I'm sure there's case-law out there of renters who've sued over stuff like this and I honestly don't know how courts look at this, but lets look at it as lay-people. It's a close analogy but not the same because the landlord is improving your house by "closing" the bathroom, so when he's done, you'll be getting a better house for the same money. This is actually a closer analogy to my daycare closing for teacher in-service days, because an argument can be made that I'm getting better teachers/school afterward. But frankly, I'm guessing a tenant could refuse the remodel during the term of their contract, unless it was required due to a leak or something. And that's probably a whole other discussion (if the remodel was required for safety--that's getting a little closer, but it still is only analogous if the school HAS TO close for snow rather than choosing to close. I'm not sure in what situations, other than a snow emergency, that the daycare HAS to close. I'm sure there are some--I just don't know them).

EVICTION: I can't imagine you can evict just for not liking someone, and if you can, then making them pay until you find another renter is outrageously wrong. I'm guessing whatever rule you're talking about that might exist for eviction (if it's in landlord/tenant law and not just in your contract) exists only because you are allowed to evict in situation where the tenant is a WRONG-DOER. They have trashed the place, flooded it, destroyed your investment, etc. So yes, in that case, kick them out and charge them until you find another tenant (if you're allowed to) because THEY HAVE CAUSED the situation and are being bad people and have DAMAGED you financially......but again, totally not the same thing as a snow day.

Ughhh, and the cell example is the same as the college and Comcase example. Not a good argument--not the same thing.
Reply With Quote