Starting with Roehl in February

True. However in this case he was there for a single week, and they held that payment back. So he received nothing.


Ed

 

He received a week of training

 

Not enough to fulfill the contract.


Ed

 

So Roehl Forks out all money for travel, accommodations, background checks, use if their equipment for 1 week, wages for their employees for his week of being trained, drug test/physical and other incidentals so they should eat this financial list because he decided doesn't want to drive a truck

 

I never said Roehl wasn't entitled to ANYTHING. They could take him to small claims I suppose and try to get something out of him.

However, the contract was not fulfilled by either party and therefore is void. They could try to sue for damages for breaking the contract, but they are not going to get the full amount the contract stipulates since again, the contract was not fulfilled. I don't make the law.

If you paid a contractor to build you a house and you decided after the foundation was poured to change your mind, do you think you should still have to pay for the whole house, even if the builder doesn't finish it, or do you think you should only have to pay for the part they started before you changed your mind?

It's amazing to me that people see the word "contract" and think it's like the ten commandments, written in stone. You can even call it a commandment if you chose, but if one or both parties do not receive the consideration stipulated in the contract, it's void. In the end sure, Roehl could try to get something out of it. They did provide 1 week of training. My bet is, since they held back 1 weeks pay that was also stipulated in the contract, any judge would say ok, that's fair, case over. But no judge is going to make him fulfill his end by paying the $5000 without him getting the full training and a CDL for their end.

It's an assumed risk on their part. They pay money to have people come to training and some fail the drug test. Or fail the CDL driving test, or somewhere else along the line. Perhaps they fail the physical, as I did. Should I have paid TMC back for travel costs? That's part of the business model.


Ed

 

In my case my training was local. No money for travel or accommodation. Certainly background checks, and drug testing and 5 lunches.

 

The contract is legal, it did provided consideration to you. The you broke the contract and decided to not accept the consideration given in the contract, that’s on you not Roehl. Roehl was prepared to live up to their end of the deal.

If you by a car and then decide 5 minutes later you don’t want it. You can’t just walk away and demeaned your money back. You own the car and if you decide not to take the car that’s on you. Contracts are binding from the moment they are signed.

Roehl will probably just send it to a collection agency and you will likely be able to settle for a smaller sum but that will affect your credit, just like a credit card settlement will if you settle for less then owned.

 

You are correct. I spoke directly with them yesterday and there is no budging. I have dealt with collections before and if you argue with them often enough and long enough, they will accept a fraction (maybe 10%) of the total. The key is to not ignore them. However they report the deficit to the IRS who then tax you on the balance. But you can drag it out for a couple of years placing the aggravation on them.

 

Wrong in so many ways.

Here is a quote from the Jury instruction given in a breach of contract case in Wisconsin.
"The law provides that a person who has been damaged by a breach of contract shall be fairly and reasonably compensated for his or her loss. In determining the damages, if any, you will allow an amount that will reasonably compensate the injured person for all losses that are the natural and probable results of the breach."

I'll also add this: "Thus, while it is going to differ in every case, and depend on the specific facts and the nature of the breach, it is important to realize that the only consequential damages that Wisconsin Courts are likely to award are those which you can prove were foreseeable losses..."

This goes back to what I said earlier. That he will not be liable for the entire amount, but only for the amount deemed fair because he did spend a week in the course, but had not completed the course. And for the second part, the foreseeable loss is that one spot in that class for that one week, not the entire training provided and the CDL earned.

Lets have a little more fun.

As for the whole buying a car thing, try this:

"Many consumers mistakenly believe they have three days to cancel a motor vehicle purchase contract. They do not. The 3-day "cooling off" period only applies to sales the dealer makes away from the dealership — for example, at a mall or fair grounds. If you sign a purchase contract at the dealership it is a binding contract. The dealer may charge you a penalty if you cancel the deal. By law, the penalty cannot be more than 5% of the purchase price of the vehicle."

Both instances disprove your point. In the second there is a penalty, much smaller than the full price you agreed to in the contract.

All of this information is specific to Wisconsin. Which is where Roehl runs their school.


People, please, please, PLEASE stop. Just because the word CONTRACT shows up doesn't mean you are bound to a giant rock with an unbreakable chain.