Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Ridge Creek School / Hidden Lake Academy

Court Dismisses Indemnity Clause

<< < (2/6) > >>

RobertBruce:
(He didn't)

You see Deb, Cindy has read a contract before, thus he believes himself to be an expert on all contracts.

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: ""TheWho"" ---Great news for the parents, they must be breathing easier!!

I would guess HLA was all ready prepared to have them thrown out? the contract wording was old and outdated
Attorney fee clauses and the like are being more and more thrown out of court especially when an individual or group of individuals are going up against a corporation.  These clauses are put in there to scare people from suing, but have not been successful (in many cases) in recovery unless one corporation is suing another (or landlord/tenant cases).  If the judge allowed this clause to stand then the people would be responsible for not just the attorneys fee but all associated costs that HLA incurred over and above the attorneys fee, including expert witness fees, payments for court reporters, fees for filing documents with the court, as well as costs of travel, printing, photocopying, postage, telephone, and messenger services etc..
This could add up to such a substantial amount that the families could go bankrupt and lose their homes so courts are throwing them out??. What they are writing in contracts now is a attorney fee with a ?Cap? so that people suing would be liable for up to a certain amount of say $100,000 so that families are not wiped out.  Many contracts are responding this way to appease the courts.
--- End quote ---


HLA's new contract no longer contains this language - probably on the advice of their high paid attorneys.

TheWho:

--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""TheWho"" ---Great news for the parents, they must be breathing easier!!

I would guess HLA was all ready prepared to have them thrown out? the contract wording was old and outdated
Attorney fee clauses and the like are being more and more thrown out of court especially when an individual or group of individuals are going up against a corporation.  These clauses are put in there to scare people from suing, but have not been successful (in many cases) in recovery unless one corporation is suing another (or landlord/tenant cases).  If the judge allowed this clause to stand then the people would be responsible for not just the attorneys fee but all associated costs that HLA incurred over and above the attorneys fee, including expert witness fees, payments for court reporters, fees for filing documents with the court, as well as costs of travel, printing, photocopying, postage, telephone, and messenger services etc..
This could add up to such a substantial amount that the families could go bankrupt and lose their homes so courts are throwing them out??. What they are writing in contracts now is a attorney fee with a ?Cap? so that people suing would be liable for up to a certain amount of say $100,000 so that families are not wiped out.  Many contracts are responding this way to appease the courts.
--- End quote ---

HLA's new contract no longer contains this language - probably on the advice of their high paid attorneys.
--- End quote ---



Thanks, guest, Thats what I thought and we have changed the writing in our contracts when it doesn?t apply to another corporation.  No judge wants to award these types of fees and see a person lose their homes because of a lost lawsuit against a large corporation.  Tenant/landlord contracts still carry it to avoid nuisance lawsuits which can keep the landlord tied up for ever and go bankrupt, I believe this is where the clause originally grew out of.

Just curious did they eliminate it all together or place a cap on it so they can recoup a portion of the attorneys fees in the event the plaintiff fails to make a case or loses the lawsuit?

Anonymous:
They can't collect a penny.

Anonymous:
Hopefully more parents and students will come forward to take action against the school now that the fee shifting has been deemed to be in violation of GA. public policy.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version