1st case: It was a matter of principle for the old man. He felt offended & that's understandable. His gesture to help pay for the wedding shows that he wasn't trying to be malicious. Respect the old ppl..lol. They just want to feel appreciated and respected.
So you pay for a weeks worth of child care yet there is no prorate the week of the field trip and you have to pay extra for the field trip that makes zero sense if I have to pay for the trip or pay someone else to watch my child then i better be getting a pro rated refund that week
The defendant probably cant afford to pay the fine and perhaps will have to take her child out in order to pay. She would have done better by getting someone to keep her daughter. Also the trips should be planned a year in advance or at least included estimates in the weekly or monthly fees. The terrible thing is the child who doesn't get to go. Where was she taking the children for $225
So they still have the ring plus have to pay the $12k. Family should stipulate conditions under heirlooms being passed on. Clearly have a WILL WITH SPECIFIC REQUESTS
You do not alter a ring that is so old, really it’s not rocket science, even so I would not sue my child for the money at all, how can a young couple find that sort of money when they are getting married, I would just put it down to experience that I had not made it clear about it should stay exactly as is. But I don’t think in the UK that they would change the ring, often our jewellers will not even enlarge a size of the ring in case it’s ruined. I’ve got rings that are from my great grandmother and I’m 80 years old now, so it’s very old.
2nd case ending - no it's NOT fair- plaintiff is going to have to give 50% refunds to EVERY other child when their parents start complaining that defendant only got to pay half. WHAT IS FAIRS is that the plaintiff needs to sue THE FATHER for the other half. Since the child is a minor, this shouldn't be a problem. These procedures really need to be changed in order to avoid this hassle for the plaintiff. Either: 1. BOTH PARENTS are brought in and pay for half each or 2. Plaintiff gets everything and DEFENDANT can sue the father for half since the father's relationship is with HER. This is so disgusting for the plaintiff who tried to help a child.
Most field trips are included in the regular fees or they tell the parents in advance that is additional costs and how much each trip will costs. This day care was ripping off the parents.
Actually, obviously, it was discussed "in advance" ....they BOTH clearly said they had discussions prior about the Permission Forms/etc and the mother said NO, can't afford it. And the owner said, "Don't worry about it" And THAT was the problem....one person's "Don't worry about it" meant "NEVER worry about it," to the D....and "Don't worry about it....until later" to the P Honestly, I absolutely can understand how the D may have thought the Daycare was just "scholarshiping" her daughter....it does happen "Oh, we can't afford it..... Oh, don't worry, we want little Linda to come ....don't worry about it" She should have added ...Don't worry about it RIGHT NOW, you can pay over time/later
1st case: It was a matter of principle
for the old man. He felt offended & that's understandable. His gesture to help pay for the wedding shows that he wasn't trying to be malicious.
Respect the old ppl..lol. They just want to feel appreciated and respected.
Every1 knows a family heirloom is not 2b changed.
If she's cool w the ring being changed... she shld've declined / told her dude 2 buy another 1.
Just buy NEW WEDDING RING DAAA?!!! Instead of entirely refigured!!
It was the principle. Old man had to teach the young man “order.”
First one: I don't think he should have changed the heirloom I think that takes away from the value, it wasn't his to change anyway
That 12,000 case warmed my heart at the end.
Fiancé is airhead
It is not a family heirloom anymore. The fiancé should have it back if they break up.😊
So you pay for a weeks worth of child care yet there is no prorate the week of the field trip and you have to pay extra for the field trip that makes zero sense if I have to pay for the trip or pay someone else to watch my child then i better be getting a pro rated refund that week
💯
Facts!!❤
The defendant probably cant afford to pay the fine and perhaps will have to take her child out in order to pay. She would have done better by getting someone to keep her daughter.
Also the trips should be planned a year in advance or at least included estimates in the weekly or monthly fees.
The terrible thing is the child who doesn't get to go.
Where was she taking the children for $225
Dont send your child to that daycare 😂 ,they sucks parents 💰 money
So they still have the ring plus have to pay the $12k.
Family should stipulate conditions under heirlooms being passed on.
Clearly have a WILL WITH SPECIFIC REQUESTS
You do not alter a ring that is so old, really it’s not rocket science, even so I would not sue my child for the money at all, how can a young couple find that sort of money when they are getting married, I would just put it down to experience that I had not made it clear about it should stay exactly as is. But I don’t think in the UK that they would change the ring, often our jewellers will not even enlarge a size of the ring in case it’s ruined. I’ve got rings that are from my great grandmother and I’m 80 years old now, so it’s very old.
He bought the ring at market value he can get it back if they break up.
Judge lake is fair
I think so too fair
Way Too Fair
This is now his family heirloom😊
Father has a good attitude with the money.
2nd case ending - no it's NOT fair- plaintiff is going to have to give 50% refunds to EVERY other child when their parents start complaining that defendant only got to pay half.
WHAT IS FAIRS is that the plaintiff needs to sue THE FATHER for the other half.
Since the child is a minor, this shouldn't be a problem.
These procedures really need to be changed in order to avoid this hassle for the plaintiff.
Either:
1. BOTH PARENTS are brought in and pay for half each or
2. Plaintiff gets everything and DEFENDANT can sue the father for half since the father's relationship is with HER.
This is so disgusting for the plaintiff who tried to help a child.
And I'm disappointed n the daughter 💯
It's still the GM ring and now it can be an heirloom passes to their children... isn't that the point
1rst case: I dont know what it is called but he couldve had 2 separate detacha le rings made to stand as frame of the original ring.
Sad that the Father cares more about the tradition than his daughter. Very sad.
Is he still going to marry her. Dad basically sold the ring to him.
Most field trips are included in the regular fees or they tell the parents in advance that is additional costs and how much each trip will costs.
This day care was ripping off the parents.
Actually, obviously, it was discussed "in advance" ....they BOTH clearly said they had discussions prior about the Permission Forms/etc and the mother said NO, can't afford it.
And the owner said,
"Don't worry about it"
And THAT was the problem....one person's "Don't worry about it" meant
"NEVER worry about it,"
to the D....and
"Don't worry about it....until later" to the P
Honestly, I absolutely can understand how the D may have thought the Daycare was just "scholarshiping" her daughter....it does happen
"Oh, we can't afford it.....
Oh, don't worry, we want little Linda to come ....don't worry about it"
She should have added ...Don't worry about it RIGHT NOW, you can pay over time/later
Fair enough