Legal question, please

[MiccoMacey]

My wife works a few hours a week teaching aerobics at the YWCA here in Tulsa. We were told by the lady in charge of the day care center that people who work there can receive 50% off child care, regardless of how many hours they worked. She had this confirmed by the director of the YWCA.

So we put our children's names on a waiting list, which we had to pay $25 dollars to put them on the waiting list.

My wife found out today from another aerobics teacher today that the YWCA has just changed their policy to read that only people who work 30 or more hours a week are eligible for the discount. So as of right now, we will receive no discount if we want our children to go to this day care center (which is one of the better ones in Tulsa). They are not going to honor the original agreement between us.

My question is this: when is a contract a contract? Is a verbal agreement between two parties a contract, especially when we paid money already and they accepted it?

[1stTimeCaller]

I'd just burn the place down but that's just me. Maybe you and DD could put it out if I started it?

[slickdawg]

A verbal agreement can be a contract, but typically, it must be in writing
to be enforceable in the courts. Otherwise, it becomes a "he said, she said"
kind of thing.

[mdklatt]

Is a verbal agreement between two parties a contract, especially when we paid money already and they accepted it?

There's usually a price ceiling on when a verbal contract is binding; I have no idea what that limit is in Oklahoma. I wouldn't think just putting your name on a waiting list is binding for either party. The non-assy thing for them to do would be to apologize for the confusion and give your $25 back.

But I'm not a lawyer so why I am even attempting to answer this? :confused:

[MiccoMacey]

They are not disputing that there was an agreement. Their position is they are just changing their policy and since we haven't started daycare, they can just null our agreement.

BTW, "they" never contacted us to let us know about this change. We found out through another employee. Otherwise, we'd be rolling up to the YWCA in August expecting things to be as they were agreed to.

[Skysooner]

You don't have a prayer. Even if you could find it written down some place, there is likely a clause in it that allows them to change said policy. Basically they are restricting it to anyone that can qualify as a full-time employee.

[MiccoMacey]

I'd just burn the place down but that's just me. Maybe you and DD could put it out if I started it?

Since he passed his relief driver test, he can pump the truck while I "put the fire out"...although I may stand around inside the fire for awhile waiting for it to get reaaaaalllly big. :D

[mdklatt]

Their position is they are just changing their policy and since we haven't started daycare, they can just null our agreement.


I think they're probably correct. Will they refund you the $25? And why does the YWCA of all places charge a waiting list fee in the first place?

[Okla-homey]

The answer to your question is "it depends."

You could litigate it but it could take years and cost thousands of lives and you could still lose. How much are you willing to spend to get your 25.00 back? Besides that, would you really want these people taking care of junior if you basically had to shoe-whip them to take him? Of course not.

Chalk it up to another lesson at the "University of Hard Knocks" and move on.

[mdklatt]

The answer to your question is "it depends."


Spoken like a true lawyer-to-be. :D

[oumartin]

Put her arse to work for 30hrs teaching at the YMCA then.

[Okla-homey]

FWIW That Grace "Kids" place down here near me looks nice and I hear a lot of good things about it.

[MiccoMacey]

It's not about the 25 bucks. They have stated that if we want to take our children off the waiting list, they will refund us our money.

It just bugs me when people back out of agreements. Especially when they aren't willing to tell us up front they are backing out.

[mdklatt]

It just bugs me when people back out of agreements. Especially when they aren't willing to tell us up front they are backing out.

A waiting list isn't anything more than an agreement to call you if there's an opening, is it?

[Okla-homey]

It's not about the 25 bucks. They have stated that if we want to take our children off the waiting list, they will refund us our money.

It just bugs me when people back out of agreements. Especially when they aren't willing to tell us up front they are backing out.

Unfortunately, as you know, that's what happens sometimes. Seriously, its probably just not worth pursuing IMHO.

[1stTimeCaller]

mdklatt, what I see the problem to be is common courtsey or in this case, a lack therof.

[MiccoMacey]

A waiting list isn't anything more than an agreement to call you if there's an opening, is it?

Yes. An agreement to call you if there's an opening to put you in the program at the agreed upon price. At least that's how I see it.

We'll more than likely let it drop. This thread is probably more like therapy for me by letting me vent.

Unless one of you tries to charge me for psychological treatment, in which case I never said what I said.

[mdklatt]

mdklatt, what I see the problem to be is common courtsey or in this case, a lack therof.

Unfortunately, being a dick isn't illegal. I still don't think the YWCA did anything wrong, especically since they refunded the $25. Micco says he had to hear about the policy change second-hand, but August is still a long time away. And we're talking about a waiting list, right? Until there was an opening this was all a moot point.

[TexasLidig8r]

Unfortunately, as you know, that's what happens sometimes. Seriously, its probably just not worth pursuing IMHO.

Aren't we still waiting for the professor's answer to the Connie croaking in the desert conundrum?

[Frozen Sooner]

This is a change in benefits. Since your wife isn't in a union, the company can unilaterally change the benefit structure at any time with adequate notice.

Regardless, the most you'd be able to sue for in this case would be the liquidated value of the contract-which is $25. You've been made whole.

[MiccoMacey]

You're probably 100% right. And thanks for your insight.

But it could have been bad. Mrs. MiccoMacey and I stopped trying to find daycare. If this had gone until August before we found out (and there's no indication they were ever going to tell us), we would be out big bucks because Kristin or I would have to not work or take vacation or do something until we could find some place else for the kids.

It could have cost us a bunch of dough, in which case I would have taken them to court.

And their ability to pay for their lawyers would be hampered by their inability to make mopney off their child care center that was burned down by a brother of a ****ed-off firefighter. :D

[1stTimeCaller]

I'm the yen to your yang, or whatever... :D

[mdklatt]

But it could have been bad. Mrs. MiccoMacey and I stopped trying to find daycare.

I guess I'm misunderstanding what you meant by waiting list.

[TUSooner]

The answer to your question is "it depends."

You could litigate it but it could take years and cost thousands of lives and you could still lose. How much are you willing to spend to get your 25.00 back? Besides that, would you really want these people taking care of junior if you basically had to shoe-whip them to take him? Of course not.

Chalk it up to another lesson at the "University of Hard Knocks" and move on.

Words of wisdom right there.
Appeal to their sense of decency, and if they still say "no" either accept it or take M-M Jr. elsewhere.

[caphorns]

A lawyer response -

The $25 is merely payment to put you on a waiting list. What you are asking for - specific performance of an old benefit offered to employees - is not obtainable through the courts. Companies change their benefit policies all the time and unless the benefit has vested to the employee, you can't enforce it. Because there is no vesting of this benefit, then the Company can take it away on a go-forward basis at any time.

[MiccoMacey]

I guess I'm misunderstanding what you meant by waiting list.

The class isn't "made" until the end of the semester, or whatever they call it. Kids move up into a new age category...we would get the opened slot of any kids not moving up. There is no promised slot, although we were told their always is since not all kids move up into the new age category, and some just go elsewhere.

Either or, it's been made abundantly clear it's not illegal. We'll just look elsewhere ourselves.

Thanks for the input.

[TUSooner]

A lawyer response -

The $25 is merely payment to put you on a waiting list. What you are asking for - specific performance of an old benefit offered to employees - is not obtainable through the courts. Companies change their benefit policies all the time and unless the benefit has vested to the employee, you can't enforce it. Because there is no vesting of this benefit, then the Company can take it away on a go-forward basis at any time.
Yeah, that too.

:confused: :confused:

[Frozen Sooner]

A lawyer response -

The $25 is merely payment to put you on a waiting list. What you are asking for - specific performance of an old benefit offered to employees - is not obtainable through the courts. Companies change their benefit policies all the time and unless the benefit has vested to the employee, you can't enforce it. Because there is no vesting of this benefit, then the Company can take it away on a go-forward basis at any time.

That's what I said!

[Okla-homey]

Aren't we still waiting for the professor's answer to the Connie croaking in the desert conundrum?

oh that, it was all about mens rea and stuff. The husband tried to kill her but no causal link to the victim's death. As you know, even in texass, no causation means no murder culpability. The evile secretary who stole the poisoned water exhibited the requisite mens rea, actus reas, causation (actual and legal) and no defense (justification or excuse).

[caphorns]

That's what I said!

Yeah but your explaination was very old school with the "unions" and crap. I also used the phrase "go-forward basis" with the dash. That's just better right there.

[FaninAma]

Are all texas fans lawyers? Somehow, it seems very fitting if that's the case.

[handcrafted]

Are all texas fans lawyers? Somehow, it seems very fitting if that's the case.

Dude, their football field is *named* after one. :D

[Penguin]

You could litigate it but it could take years and cost thousands of lives and you could still lose.


My God! Who knew that messing with the YWCA would be so dangerous?

[caphorns]

Are all texas fans lawyers? Somehow, it seems very fitting if that's the case.

They are. And it still amazes me that with a stadium full of pretty damn good lawyers, Vince finds a dude that wasn't even a top student at TSU to represent him.

[TexasLidig8r]

They are. And it still amazes me that with a stadium full of pretty damn good lawyers, Vince finds a dude that wasn't even a top student at TSU to represent him.

HA! Trick answer.

There ARE no top students at TSU.

Everyone knows that.

[Frozen Sooner]

Is it wrong that I've laughed at the last three replies from 'horns?