When you want to breach a contract you do business with a gangster union Teamsters Local 707 headed by Suffolk county legislator Kevin Kevin mccaffrey
Just ask the employees of Nassau otb
How many times have Nassau otb employees heard people screaming it’s a pandemic?
Betting like education is a social activity for many
What can you expect from people who never learned in public or parochial school or elsewhere that their are two
Easter sundays and even people that believe in ny const art 1 sec 3
Universities Breach Their Contracts having learned from Kevin mccaffrey & Teamsters local 707 & Nassau otb
Stop scratching on holidays
Published: June 1, 2012
Off Track Betting in New York State has been racing into a crisis called shrinking revenue. Some people have spitballed a solution: Don’t close on holidays.
New York State Racing Law bars racing on Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday, and the state has ruled OTBs can’t handle action on those days, even though they could easily broadcast races from out of state.
“You should be able to bet whenever you want,” said Jackson Leeds, a Nassau OTB employee who makes an occasional bet. He added some irrefutable logic: “How is the business going to make money if you’re not open to take people’s bets?”
Elias Tsekerides, president of the Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York, said OTB is open on Greek Orthodox Easter and Palm Sunday.
“I don’t want discrimination,” Tsekerides said. “They close for the Catholics, but open for the Greek Orthodox? It’s either open for all or not open.”
OTB officials have said they lose millions by closing on Palm Sunday alone, with tracks such as Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise and Hawthorne running.
One option: OTBs could just stay open and face the consequences. New York City OTB did just that back in 2003. The handle was about $1.5 million – and OTB was fined $5,000.
Easy money.
Students have legal recourse against unreasonable Covid restrictions.
Students walk on campus at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., Feb. 4, 2020.
PHOTO: WILLIAM THOMAS CAIN/GETTY IMAGES
Many colleges and universities are starting the new semester online and imposing draconian restrictions on campus. At Yale, students are under a campuswide quarantine and told not to eat at restaurants, even outdoors. At Princeton, officials have banned undergraduates from traveling outside the area for “personal reasons”—thus conveniently permitting travel for athletic teams. In contrast, the personal lives of faculty, staff and administrators continue uninterrupted. Apparently Covid is a threat only to the young who can easily be bullied into submission.
The move to online learning and other intrusive policies goes beyond what any state or federal health agency is recommending, let alone requiring. The Biden administration opposes school shutdowns. Yet universities still are cautioning that online learning may be extended.
But students may have legal recourse. The university-student legal relationship is grounded in contract. Under contract-law principles, universities probably have the power to impose some health restrictions as circumstances arise. But any imposition must be done in good faith and based on evidence, not on the desire of a panicky provost’s office to “do something.” What harms are caused by students socializing, given the minuscule risk Covid presents to vaccinated 20-somethings? And why not apply these rules to higher-risk faculty and staff?
Breach-of-contract lawsuits for switching to online learning were brought at the onset of the pandemic, but most were unsuccessful. Courts applied contract law’s impossibility doctrine to find that government orders or recommendations against in-person learning rendered impossible the provision of the contracted-for services. Some courts further reasoned that universities didn’t contractually promise in-person learning: They merely agreed to supply a degree or course of study, and thus could choose an online format.
But with widespread vaccination and improved understanding of Covid’s risks, circumstances have changed dramatically. There are no government orders banning, or even recommending against, in-person classes. Universities have accumulated significant experience with hybrid modes of instruction, making it possible to accommodate high-risk students and faculty while sustaining in-person education.
That leaves us with courts’ other rationale for dismissing the prior lawsuits: Universities don’t promise applicants in-person learning. That is simply absurd. Online programs are marketed as such and generally cost less. University promotional literature emphasizes the in-person experience. Most important, in-person learning comports with reasonable expectations formed through campus visits and past educational experiences. Would anyone believe a university fulfilled its obligations if it switched to online learning to save on building costs? Mounting evidence shows that online learning generally underperforms in-person instruction at all levels of education.
If universities choose to go online under present circumstances, they are likely in breach of contract. Some schools with similar residential and online degree programs steeply discount their online offerings. Basic contract-law principles would require universities to refund students for the difference between standard and online tuition.
There are ambiguities within the student-university contract, and we don’t fault courts for finding reasons to side with universities early in the pandemic. But good law and sound policy hold that, absent an official public-health order, universities are contractually obligated to continue in-person instruction and may only impose reasonable restrictions on students.
University officials might truly believe that online education is necessary for the safety of staff, faculty and surrounding community. But universities must bear the costs of those beliefs, not pass them on to students.
Messrs. Schanzenbach and Shoked are professors at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.
No comments:
Post a Comment