legal question

[Gonzo]

Hi Webglider,

While I feel there are broader issues relating to how certain practitioners commoditize their services and seem to have adopted the approach of allopathic medicine, treating symptoms instead of focusing on prevention or treating the source, I am trying to put those feelings aside and look at your situation with objectivity.

I don't know if I'm offering anything new but ...

Is the 916.66 (I love those three 6's in a row) for treatments already received that you just haven't been able to pay for or do they represent something else?

If $550 is the 10% penalty, does that mean 10% of the total value of the contract or the value of the unused portion?

Was the termination fee ever discussed?

In some jurisdictions, contract law does not permit to charge penalties. This might be worth looking into.

I don't like this guy's approach and your relationship with him is obviously degraded, so it's completely understandable that, even if you could afford to continue the treatments, it would be the last thing on your mind. So, as was said earlier, option 2 is the only one you can work with.

If the 916.66, which they refer to as 2 month late payment is undisputed (that is to say you agree you owe it for bills not paid), and want to pay the difference between the discount and full price for treatments received, the only portion you might be able to wiggle on is the "penalty" and perhaps a payment schedule, OSIT.
In a way, it's unfortunate you stopped the treatments because of financial difficulties. If you had stopped because of problems with the service or practitioner, you might have had more of a leg to stand on to legitimize breaking an agreement. Without a reason to break a contract, all that remains is negotiation, as has been suggested by others.

I asked a lawyer friend tonight if he could see any way out, but he couldn't. He was the one who told me that penalties are lot legal in some jurisdictions. He also said that the practitioner might have some difficulty enforcing the penalty if they were not part of the agreement if terms were not discussed. However, a judge might chose to allow a rate commonly charged in such circumstances based on other practices. He also said it is quite common that smaller practices rely on verbal agreements since they can't afford hiring a lawyer to hammer out contracts for them.

I'm sorry you are going through such a difficult time and hope things turn around for you.

Gonzo

 

[go2]

The email is a first offer toward a negotiated settlement of a breached contract for services.

So where is the Contract? Clearly there was "no meeting of the minds" if the issue of early termination (for whatever cause) was never discussed?

If you want to look at this like our bodies are no different than our cars, fine. I don't agree with you, because my body is much harder to get out of than my car...but for the sake of discussion, if I were to enter into a maintenance agreement on my car, it would:
a) be required by state law to be in writing
b) contain a early termination clause which states exactly what I am financially responsible for should I sell or wreck the vehicle.

At best, there was an oral agreement that never addressed the issue. Most states REQUIRE that all business contracts be in writing to be enforceable anyway. While oral agreements between individuals can occasionally be enforced, there is generally a burden upon businesses to document financial contracts. Depending upon the state, the contract may even require notarization.

Webglider made a "good faith" offer to cover the difference between the discounted rate and the regular rate for the sessions he did receive. Legally, I don't believe he could be forced to even do this, due to the lack of a signed contract...but he offered what was fair under the circumstances anyway.

In return, he got a bullygram from Dr. Jekyll. At this point, if it was me, I'd tell Dr. Jekyll where he could put his needles.

It looks like webglider is going to need an attorney to sort this out. We have a lot of diverging points of view, which is why there are so many lawyers making a good living. An oral contract is usually proven by action taken by one or both parties which evidence the existence of the contract. Webglider received services for a discounted fee and attempted to settle the contract by negotiation. These three facts are proof of the existence of a contract for service. In addition, webglider admits the existence of the oral contract. This seems to be one of those situations where an ant became an elephant by neglect of detail. I have to be sure I am not guilty of the same charge. Anyway that is my non-professional two cents and I hope I haven't added more confusion to webglider's burden.

I wish you a speedy and satisfactory resolution to this affair, webglider. Let us know how time answers the questions. By the way, are you a man or a woman? :)

 

[Gonzo]

Building upon Heimdallr's post, I'd like to add that any thread on this forum is treated with the context of this forum's purpose. While webglider was asking for legal advice, responses are contextualized with the Work. While the matter at hand requires attention, the benefit to all is derived through linking the issue back to developing a deeper understanding of our reality.

We all know it's an ugly world out there and that systems are designed to dehumanize. But to ignore the pathology and only focus on the matter at hand is a wasted opportunity to further study our world and broaden our objective understanding of it.

Many people new to the forum who have not taken the time to understand the basic premises upon which this forum was created and operates will perhaps find these additional layers of context as a distraction or noise when, in fact, the opposite is true. To not deal with the broader issues creates a vacuum here, OSIT.

As well, as it has been explained many times, many who are new to this forum are unaccustomed to straight talk, void of social manipulation and emotional reaction and ego catering. Many of them would find some conversations here as cold, blunt, matter of fact. While respect and manners are common, it is the subtle (and not so subtle) social cues most are accustomed to that are often lacking here. This is what real and healthy interhuman communications looks like and because it is so foreign to most, it just seems somehow wrong to them.

When I first joined, this was the biggest hurdle I had to climb over - to let go of the old paradigm and to see things with new eyes.

Gonzo

 

[SeekinTruth]

For Happyville to claim that what the forum does and the role moderators and administrators play to be without the consent of ALL the forum members, is either another mechanical manipulation or utter ignorance of what this forum is all about and what actually takes place here. Everyone who participates here sincerely, definitely does consent and agree to have their masks stripped -- all those aspects of false personality/the Predator's Mind that we, ourselves, can't see and deal with. Thus we need a network such as this to accomplish.

Besides Happyville's covert manipulations and passive-aggressive digs at anart and the whole forum dynamic, to put the whole thing in a nutshell, the crux of the matter he is missing is that the law and legal procedures WERE put into place by pathological types. Not to take into account that the patient (Webglider) will never trust the acupuncturist ever again because of that pathological response is part of the crux of the matter. She will never want to be treated by him again and will tell anyone that is looking for an acupuncturist to stay away from this one.

That's the other thing that is pretty consistent with pathological types. They don't see that in the long term, it is trust, loyalty and word of mouth that makes a business successful, not these bullying / threatening postures with customers. Especially since this idiot is not in a position to have monopoly or near monopoly in his line of business like some of the very large corporations who also act in such pathological and bullying ways.

 

[Laura]

Thanks for throwing me a bone Gonzo - this puts A LOT in to perspective regarding some of what I considered to be odd mod behavior on the site. - I don't treat people this way and find playing with people in the way you describe without their consent to be abhorrent and morally wrong! My initial thoughts were that the forum was about helping and discussing ( I actually thought it was all about the topic of the thread ) but your explanation certainly explains things... Very surprised by all of this but I will certainly bounce and find more constructive pursuits! !

No one is 'playing with people' other than you, Happyville. Before posting further on this site, please at least read the works of G.I. Gurdjieff so you can begin to grasp some of the basic ideas on which this forum is based. When you have done that, let us know and we will reinstate your posting privileges.

I think that Happyville didn't bother to read the forum guidelines where the aim and methods of this forum are clearly set out and described.

 

[Joe]

Hi Happyville,

You will encounter concepts and terminology on this forum that require a certain level of knowledge. As a participant in this forum, one needs to be versed in the requisite books, agree with the forum guidelines and, ultimately the goals and approaches of this forum.

Since this forum is designed along the lines of a Gurdjieffian 4th Way school, and incorporates aspects from various schools of thought, there is a requisite level of knowledge one needs to have to participate in a meaningful manner.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say this. What is and is not "meaningful participation" undoubtedly varies for each member and it is for the forum member themselves to decide what is, for them, meaningful participation.

Without the requisite knowledge, it would be like someone with an elementary school education entering a university math class and asking the professor and classmates to help fill the knowledge gap.

This only applies to certain topics that are discussed. There are other topics that do not require any specialised knowledge. A decent "degree from the university of life" often suffices for members to have productive exchanges with each other.

Furthermore, there is a requirement to treat each other with respect and dignity, notwithstanding the selective and intentional use of button-pushing scratch tests used by senior members to reveal another member's wearing of a mask (often to either protect the forum from pathological and predatory types or to create the necessary heat to provoke a member who has been unsuccessful inititating change for themselves - at least that's how I understand it).

Such approaches by moderators are usually only taken when a member has either asked for specific feedback or are acting in an obnoxious and disrespectful way. They are not, by any means, a standard policy for this forum.

The use of sarcasm, condescension and other subtle forms of social manipulation are considered disrespectful.

As I believe is true for ordinary, decent people the world over.

 

[webglider]

Today, The Professional Discipline Complaint Form arrived in the mail. Also, included, came a Patient's Bill of Rights which includes the following definition of Rights:

1. Receeive clear explainations of the services provided and how much they cost.
2. Refuse any serviice offered.

You are encouraged to choose professionals who uphold these rights and who also

1. Treat you with courtesy and respect.

EXPLAIN YOUR SERVICE OPTIONS, INCLUDING THEIR CONSEQUENCES ...

Having read the above I have made the decision to not pay any part of the bill because the consequences of the service option I was sold were not explained to me even when I raised the circumstance which would motivate me to discontinue service. As I never had to continue service in the first place, I don't see why I now why I should have to pay for a failed attempt at intimidation.

I was not treated with respect.

I was being rushed into making payment that seems would be deemed illegal if it were reviewed under the conditions outlined above in The Patient's Bill of Rights.

I will not file a complaint because I don't want to ruin someone's whole career. Nor will I communicate with him. He isthe type of person who would use any written communication against his victim. With people like that, it's good to keep your thoughts and plans private.

I have a nice program that I have to watch as it has no judgment whatsoever. What an awful man!

Having having said all of this, and knowing what I know about the procession of all the little i's I would appreciate feedback as to whether this is a decision based on objective reality or one created by one of the little i's. I don't want to fall into one of the many traps on this path.

 

[Buddy]

Having read the above I have made the decision to not pay any part of the bill because the consequences of the service option I was sold were not explained to me even when I raised the circumstance which would motivate me to discontinue service.

Well if I were a juror in a case where you were defending from "breech of contract", the above would sway me to your side. I believe he has no legal grounds to enforce a unilateral 'contract'. Unilateral, because I think there are two different 'contracts' here - the one you had in your head, and his version which appears to support adding an after-the-fact penalty clause of which he failed to make you aware.

 

[Muxel]

Is the 916.66 (I love those three 6's in a row) for treatments already received that you just haven't been able to pay for or do they represent something else?

The $916.66 is nonsense. Webglider did not schedule regular appointments. Webglider did not reserve any hours during those 2 months. Healer is conjuring "late payments" out of thin air, appending to the verbal contract in his own head without webglider's knowledge/consent.

If $550 is the 10% penalty, does that mean 10% of the total value of the contract or the value of the unused portion?

This can be answered with simple math. It is 10% of the total contract.
Healer "assumes" 2 months = $916.66
So, 1 month = $458.33
12 months = $5 499.96
10% of that is $549.99 which rounds up to $550

Was the termination fee ever discussed?

No my good Gonzo, that would defeat the purpose of making a contract. Contracts aren't meant to be broken, and if they are, things get messy and expensive.

In some jurisdictions, contract law does not permit to charge penalties. This might be worth looking into.

Webglider was the one who suggested the penalty, and Healer agreed. Thus they mutually agreed to "append a new clause" to their verbal contract. But webglider can choose to negotiate the penalty since the 10% figure was not mutually agreed upon.

In a way, it's unfortunate you stopped the treatments because of financial difficulties. If you had stopped because of problems with the service or practitioner, you might have had more of a leg to stand on to legitimize breaking an agreement. Without a reason to break a contract, all that remains is negotiation, as has been suggested by others.

Exactly. In the eyes of the law, webglider is the one at fault for trying to violate a business contract.

Webglider, at the very beginning you said this:

I could understand his position which is why I offered to make up the difference for the treatments I had already received plus a penalty.

Meaning everything was fine save for the $916.66 part. You have every right to dispute and nullify the $916.66 part, end the contract, and continue with your life. Why are you still talking about little I's and the U.S. Patient's Bill of Rights?

 

[Guardian]

Was the termination fee ever discussed?

No my good Gonzo, that would defeat the purpose of making a contract. Contracts aren't meant to be broken, and if they are, things get messy and expensive.

This is not true in US contract law, in fact, quite the opposite is the norm. EVERY term (future period) contract I've signed has had an early termination clause...pool maintenance, port-o-let pumping, dumpsters, cell phones, satellite service, leases for cars, apartments, mortgages, etc. They ALL contain provisions for breaking the contract.

I just signed a two year contract with Sprint. If I decide to change cell phone companies before I fulfill the contract, I have to pay a $500.00 "early termination fee" which covers the discount I got on two Android's by signing a two year contract. Fair enough, since I agreed to it in black and white. I won't have to pay the full value of the contract (about $200.00 a month) because I canceled the service, but I agreed (in writing) to what I would have to pay.

There is a HUGE difference between services that have been provided and services that have yet to be provided. The courts recognize that a person's circumstances can change, and BUSINESS contracts are expected to allow for the fact that the future is unpredictable.

Webglider and Dr. Jekyll never even discussed what would happen in the event of an early termination (Webglider has to move, reacts poorly to the treatments, whatever?) hence there was NO agreement.

 

[Gonzo]

It's quite a scam to charge for acupuncture, whether or not the patient actually received the treatments. This was why I was trying to understand the late payment, to determine if services were rendered of if it was merely for having the privilege to receive treatments. It's money owed if the treatments were received. It's disputable if it's merely for the privilege to have had the service.

This comes back to the issue of what, precisely is being sold. It sounds to me like the practitioner is selling something like cable service, whether you use the cable or not. This does not sound like healthcare and therefore I wonder if the practitioner is violating some state regulation, or at the very least, some rule of the profession.

@perceval,
You are right. I should have taken more care in reviewing my comments and recognizing where I was making generalizations, both in terms of requisite knowledge as well as moderator application of turning up the heat, so to speak.

Not being privy to moderator discussions, I am left to observing and drawing my own conclusions for which I need to ensure I remain open to further understanding and avoid forming concrete assumptions.

I was under the impression that every board dealt with the Work, in one form or another and to understand and participate, one would therefore need to have a basic understanding of Laura's work, Gurdjieff, Castaneda, Lobaczewski, etc., and so I would appreciate any clarification you feel I would benefit from.

As well, I had felt that by being part of the forum, members agree to be challenged and prodded, if, and only if, it is determined necessary by mods or some senior members. I apologize if I gave the impression otherwise or if I am wrong in my interpretation.

Gonzo

 

[Joe]

I was under the impression that every board dealt with the Work, in one form or another and to understand and participate, one would therefore need to have a basic understanding of Laura's work, Gurdjieff, Castaneda, Lobaczewski, etc., and so I would appreciate any clarification you feel I would benefit from.

Every board does not deal with the Work, as I mentioned above, it is up to each member to decide how much they give and how much they take away. Understanding of Laura's work, Gurdjieff, Castaneda, Lobaczewski etc is very useful, but not a prerequisite. Although perhaps an understanding of Laura's work more than any of the others (because she deals with such a wide array of topics, and she did, after all, create this forum) is the most important.

As well, I had felt that by being part of the forum, members agree to be challenged and prodded, if, and only if, it is determined necessary by mods or some senior members. I apologize if I gave the impression otherwise or if I am wrong in my interpretation.

Members are only expected to agree to the forum guidelines. Assuming their agreement to the guidelines implies a specific acceptance of being "prodded or challenged", as a matter of course, is not a good idea I think.

 

[cholas]

Having having said all of this, and knowing what I know about the procession of all the little i's I would appreciate feedback as to whether this is a decision based on objective reality or one created by one of the little i's. I don't want to fall into one of the many traps on this path.

Hi webglider. I think this is a very good question. I had to go back a couple times and reread your initial post and the email from the practitioner and it seems that by avoiding contact and not offering some type of payment you might possibly be engaging in a 'running away' type of program.

And it sounds like you might be using the fact that he's not nice to justify this action.

What does seem to be objective is that you made an agreement with someone and now you cannot fulfill it. Legalities(which I am not familiar with) aside, I would think that some type of contact and payment should be agreed upon if only for your own integrity. Or maybe just send the 550.00, no contact, and put the ball in his court. Maybe that would be enough.

FWIW, I read the acupuncturist's email as 'business as usual' which, as other's have pointed out, is quite tinged with the pathological element. Nonetheless, typical and 'professional'. And I agree with Guardian, there is usually an opt-out clause in any contract and although you might not have discussed the details, you are 'opting out' which does usually involve a substantial penalty.

 

[ana]

I would answer his mail, based on what you know now, addressing each point accurately and briefly; just think about the possibility that He'll report the non-payment, and you'll receive the complaint without having a formal complaint or at least a mail response where you clearly state that He never agreed with you any of the above (his mail), and that He is not entitled to invent the terms of resolution, based on the advice you've been given by the Office of Professional Discipline.

And if you don't want to engage with him in order to reach a satisfactory agreement, then you may need to make the official complaint, osit.

I've found that it is better to leave things as clarified as possible before turning away...

 

[Gonzo]

I was under the impression that every board dealt with the Work, in one form or another and to understand and participate, one would therefore need to have a basic understanding of Laura's work, Gurdjieff, Castaneda, Lobaczewski, etc., and so I would appreciate any clarification you feel I would benefit from.

Every board does not deal with the Work, as I mentioned above, it is up to each member to decide how much they give and how much they take away. Understanding of Laura's work, Gurdjieff, Castaneda, Lobaczewski etc is very useful, but not a prerequisite. Although perhaps an understanding of Laura's work more than any of the others (because she deals with such a wide array of topics, and she did, after all, create this forum) is the most important.

As well, I had felt that by being part of the forum, members agree to be challenged and prodded, if, and only if, it is determined necessary by mods or some senior members. I apologize if I gave the impression otherwise or if I am wrong in my interpretation.

Members are only expected to agree to the forum guidelines. Assuming their agreement to the guidelines implies a specific acceptance of being "prodded or challenged", as a matter of course, is not a good idea I think.

Makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

Gonzo