[NAGDU] Dispute resolution

Tue May 10 15:01:28 UTC 2016

Like I said before, I haven't read through many of the contracts, so I don't 
know what's in there.  When people say there is a clause that they won't 
hold the program liable for any damages, is that just related to the dog? or 
does that include any aspect of the program?  What if there was a problem 
with the food and someone got sick?  What if there was a car accident while 
you were riding in the school van?  What if another participant stole things 
from you or caused some other serious problem?  What if there was a building 
fire and the alarm system was broken?

I'm honestly just curious.  Lots of things happen that aren't planned or 
even thought of.  When the program says they aren't liable, what exactly 
does this include? I'm sure there will be a million replies stating that the 
program will always do the right thing, but do we *know* that?  If the 
contract says they aren't liable, then they aren't responsible if you get 
food poisoning, or whiplash in a car accident, or to replace your Braille 
display because soda got spilled on it or any number of other things not dog 
related.

I don't expect there is any answer to these ponderings.  I'm just tossing it 
out there as food for thought.  So the next time you sign a contract, at a 
guide dog program or anywhere else, perhaps it will help someone to think a 
bit deeper about the meaning of what you are signing.

Julie
Courage to Dare: A Blind Woman's Quest to Train her Own Guide Dog is now 
available! Get the book here:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QXZSMOC
-----Original Message----- 
From: NAGDU President via NAGDU
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:45 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Cc: NAGDU President
Subject: Re: [NAGDU] Dispute resolution

Tracy,

The unfortunate part of what you say is that it is true. When we
introduced our resolution last year concerning ownership upon completion of
training, the resolution failed because many people falsely believe a
training program would not remove a dog without cause. This leads to a very
convoluted discussion of what constitutes cause and who has the authority to
assess such cause. Without ownership, a consumer has very little recourse.
Even with ownership, as is the case with Fidelco and Southeastern, the
contracts are so loaded in favor of the program that, I believe, a court
might rule in favor of a consumer should it be contested. Let me share what
I mean.

In the case of fidelco, their agreement says they transfer
ownership, yet state Fidelco has the right to repossess the dog at any time
at their sole and absolute discretion. Though I am not an attorney, I
believe a court would rule it cannot be both ways. Ownership carries with it
certain rights, one of which is the right to retain possession and not have
that possession interfered with unless there is a legally supported
justification for such a rescission of that ownership and cannot be done
without due process. Therefore, fidelco cannot repossess property at their
sole and absolute discretion, as this would be considered grand larceny un
der the law.

As for the ownership with Southeastern guide dog, they mandate
retirement at age 10 or 11, I do not remember which. If a consumer chooses
to work their dog after that age, Southeastern has little recourse under the
law. They cannot remove the dog, as this would be considered larceny, as
well. They can repossess the harness but the consumer still has the ability
to purchase another harness and the right to work the dog.

Those who contend a training program would not remove a dog unjustly
has not been on my end of a telephone call with someone whose dog has been
or is being threatened with removal without cause. Perhaps if they would put
themselves in the places of these consumers or hear the pain I hear when I
tell them there is nothing that can be done because they do not own the dog,
perhaps they would change their minds!

Fraternally yours,
Marion Gwizdala

-----Original Message-----
From: NAGDU [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tracy Carcione
via NAGDU
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:29 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Cc: Tracy Carcione
Subject: [NAGDU] Dispute resolution

Julie J brought up dispute resolution yesterday, and I think it's an
interesting topic, and one that's often neglected.

I don't remember anything about dispute resolution in the contracts I've
signed, though I may have forgotten stuff.

I do remember signing something that said I can't hold the school
responsible for anything, pretty much.

The biggest dispute I can think of is a school saying a dog must retire or
be repossessed, and the user saying No.  I don't think, with most schools,
the user has any recourse, and I think that's a problem.  It doesn't come up
with TSE, since I own my dog, and, in the end, I say what happens, right or
wrong.

Tracy

_______________________________________________
NAGDU mailing list
NAGDU at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NAGDU:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.net

_______________________________________________
NAGDU mailing list
NAGDU at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NAGDU:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/julielj%40neb.rr.com

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2265 / Virus Database: 4365/11699 - Release Date: 05/09/16 