Am i entitled to refund on school trip

poet123

If the term was written into the contract (aka the parental consent form) then unless it could be shown to be unfair (and the onus would be on the parent to contest it) then the contract would stand. If the school incurred a loss and that loss was due to the breach of contract terms by the child for whom the parent signed the form then it is unlikely it would be deemed unfair, unless it appeared the magnitude of the incident had been exaggerated or the court did not agree that there were other ramifications (precedent, health and safety, etc)

That is according to my son who is legally trained

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

OK, here's a serious question, and I don't know what the answer is.

If you were an employee of a company and were paying into the company pension, and then you got fired for gross misconduct, what happens to the money you paid into the pension?

Depends if you are in the public or private sector I believe

DVardysShadow

mynameistallulah wrote: »

DVardysShadow wrote: »

mynameistallulah wrote: »

DVardysShadow wrote: »

.... But if the school wants the clause in a holiday contract, it would have to put it there explicitly and they would be on a very sticky wicket to argue that the behaviour policy provided a basis to cancel the pupil's place on the holiday without compensation.

Of course it would not - a school holiday is a school activity - the behaviour policy covers all school activities. Do children/ parents really need to be told that the same behaviour standards apply on a school holiday as when on school premises?

.Putting the matter into the big people's world, suppose a package holiday company put a clause in a booking form that anyone subsequently found guilty of an offence in a magistrate's court would be barred from the holiday without recompense. Do you expect that would be accepted as a fair clause?..

The analogy you use is not relevant because the two things are entirely unrelated. The correct analogy has already been given, if a passenger misbehaves at an airport, the airline has every right to refuse boarding without refund - the two things are directly related.

I think you got quite lost here

Your analogy is far from relevant to the original point. The airport scenario relates to a clear and immediate danger to the safety and enjoyment of other passengers.

My analogy about a hypothetical holiday booking form condition applies directly to what you were saying 'that the same behaviour standards apply on a school holiday as when on school premises'. Failing to hand in homework or indeed answering a teacher back do not constitute a clear and immediate danger to the safety of others on the holiday - my analogy was directed at that aspect.

halibut2209

@poet

The "other ramifactions" would be that the incident in question is unrelated to the trip. And the precedents have already been covered (contract law)

If this did end up in court, I have no doubt that a judge would say that the money should be refunded

And even if the loss is "breach of contract terms by the child", the fact that it is the other party that is the sole decider of that is an unfair term by definition.

poet123

halibut2209 wrote: »

OK, here's a serious question, and I don't know what the answer is.

If you were an employee of a company and were paying into the company pension, and then you got fired for gross misconduct, what happens to the money you paid into the pension?

You would receive it at the appropriate time provided there wasn't an explicit gross misconduct clause in the pension contract.

halibut2209

poet123 wrote: »

You would receive it at the appropriate time provided there wasn't an explicit gross misconduct clause in the pension contract.

Do you have a source for that?

I ask because I think this is a similar situation, but in the "real world" as opposed to a school trip.

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

@poet

The "other ramifactions" would be that the incident in question is unrelated to the trip. And the precedents have already been covered (contract law)

If this did end up in court, I have no doubt that a judge would say that the money should be refunded

And even if the loss is "breach of contract terms by the child", the fact that it is the other party that is the sole decider of that is an unfair term by definition.

So there is literally not a single thing the child could have done which would warrant the school keeping the money?

Do you have any legal training? You seem very definite about this when pretty much everyone else on this thread believes if the pupils offense is severe enough then the school are within their rights to cover their losses.

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

Suppose it (not in this case) was about a bullying incident and both the kids were going on the trip. The school could not allow the bully to go and they would be completely within their rights to refuse to take them. There are ay number of other scenarios which could apply here. The salient point is that the parent signs up to let the school apply their behaviour policy, and agrees to abide by it.

I would agree insofar as the school would be entirely within their rights to apply the policy and not let the bully go. And that would be without regard to the seriousness of the initiating behaviour.

But if it came to a matter of not paying back all monies, I doubt that the school would be upheld in not refunding unless the bully had been worked with to no effect and we were in the drunk passenger analogy that despite efforts, there was a clear danger to the enjoyment and safety of other participants.

poet123

halibut2209 wrote: »

@poet

The "other ramifactions" would be that the incident in question is unrelated to the trip. And the precedents have already been covered (contract law)

If this did end up in court, I have no doubt that a judge would say that the money should be refunded

And even if the loss is "breach of contract terms by the child", the fact that it is the other party that is the sole decider of that is an unfair term by definition.

No, the other ramifications would include an assessment of whether the child was likely to repeat the behaviour whilst on the trip and what knock on effect that would/could have.

The court would be the arbiter of whether the school had acted unfairly and whether they should bear any loss. I suspect, from what my son has said, that this is unlikely. The point is that the contract would stand unless the parent contested it, few would actually bother.

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

Do you have a source for that?

I ask because I think this is a similar situation, but in the "real world" as opposed to a school trip.

I don't think its a similar situation. In the real world there are watertight contracts that cover all aspects. A school trip form will have nowhere near the same amount of legal protection for either the school or the parent