> The students are asking for equitable relief, such as canceling their income-share agreements or getting a refund.
In law, a plaintiff can seek monetary damages or equitable relief. The latter is generally only available when money damages are insufficient, and it is harder to win equitable relief than money damages.
For example, in the Twitter/Elon case, there was a question as to whether Twitter could successfully sue Elon for the equitable remedy of "specific performance" (making someone perform a specific action). It would have been perhaps unprecedented to force a reluctant bidder to purchase a company against his will.
I find it interesting that these plaintiffs are going for equitable relief, when money damages would seemingly suffice. Just give the plaintiffs whatever money is due on their loans, which would then be used to extinguish the loans. I don't understand why they're going for an equitable remedy, which is harder to get. (For example, there is the "clean hands doctrine", which requires that one “who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” [1] This doctrine does not apply when plaintiffs merely seek money damages.)
Monetary damages compensate you for financial losses or harm that has already occurred. The plaintiffs want injunctive relief against future collection as well as restitution for amounts already paid.
I am not a lawyer, but wouldn't the issue with calculating damages be the nature of income share agreements?
If a student's debt is based on their future income, damages could be $0k right now, only because they're under the threshold where an ISA applies. In a few years they could cross that threshold through their own work, having gained nothing from the bootcamp, and suddenly be on the hook for upwards of $30k.
That said, if a predatory code bootcamp didn't teach me to code, I'd be pretty discouraged from continuing knowing that I'll still have to pay the grifters.
> * For example, in the Twitter/Elon case, there was a question as to whether Twitter could successfully sue Elon for the equitable remedy of "specific performance" (making someone perform a specific action). It would have been perhaps unprecedented to force a reluctant bidder to purchase a company against his will.*
Not only is it not in precedented to force a reluctant bidder to purchase a company against their will, but the very judge who was assigned to Elon Musks’s case forced a company to buy another (i.e. “specific performance”) in 2021. Look up Snow Phipps vs Kcakes.
It’s not a coincidence that Musk suddenly changed his tune and went through with the acquisition. I’m sure that his legal team told him that he was going to lose the case.
In law, a plaintiff can seek monetary damages or equitable relief. The latter is generally only available when money damages are insufficient, and it is harder to win equitable relief than money damages.
For example, in the Twitter/Elon case, there was a question as to whether Twitter could successfully sue Elon for the equitable remedy of "specific performance" (making someone perform a specific action). It would have been perhaps unprecedented to force a reluctant bidder to purchase a company against his will.
I find it interesting that these plaintiffs are going for equitable relief, when money damages would seemingly suffice. Just give the plaintiffs whatever money is due on their loans, which would then be used to extinguish the loans. I don't understand why they're going for an equitable remedy, which is harder to get. (For example, there is the "clean hands doctrine", which requires that one “who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” [1] This doctrine does not apply when plaintiffs merely seek money damages.)
1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clean_hands_doctrine#:~:text....