Partner Dancer
Well-Known Member
In general, the interest of the studios is to protect their businesses -- not to "control lives". In any case, no matter what contract is at hand in any industry, the overriding real-life concerns are:
1. What are the interests of the parties to the contract?
2. Are the parties acting in good faith throughout the duration of the contract?
If the studio really wanted to offer "good faith," then it needs to provide the
customer the choice of opting-in or opting-out of various interactions up-front,
in very explicit and highlighted form. Many customer would be turned off right up
front and may very well not join the studio from day 1.
As it is, studios sneak in these provisions under the covers, as riders. Studio
owners know that these provisions would not fly with many customers.
The notion of always having to PAY big money to deal with studio employees
is not going to sit well with careful spenders. The dance business depends
on the "teaser rate" type of customer recruiting and up-front declarations
goes against these tactics.
People enter into contracts because they *want* to have relationships with each other over some period of time. All this agonizing over fine details, enforceability, etc., misses the point IMO. If things get to the point where any of that matters, the relationship has probably already failed -- which means that people aren't getting what they wanted in the first place. It doesn't really matter (for this discussion) exactly *how* things fall apart after that -- it only matters that they *will* fall apart.
The terms of these contracts are lopsided from day 1, with the studios
knowing what they want and the (new) customer pretty much clueless.
That's why "re-negotiation" or "enforce-ability" comes into the picture,
when the customer finally wakes up to what the real deal is.
Pretty much like many other businesses.