TubeNet

harold wrote:Way too much contract law -

It would seem at least from a contractual standpoint that Y has no standing unless there is some document that says otherwise.

Even if there is a document, it is almost certainly an agreement only between X and Y and X's students would not be bound by the agreement.

Here is an idea. If Y has more fame/reputation than X, is broke and completely persistant about this, it might be beneficial to everyone involved to make a different sort of arrangement. Although I don't think X has an obligation to Y, X might feel like there is, and may be trying not to burn bridges.

What if X set up a masterclass for only the students who wanted to have a masterclass with Y, but remain completely the students of X? The students could pay a slightly smaller fee (this is, if they chose to do so and completely separate of their lesson fees to X) and attend in a group. Students would be clear in the fact their instructor was X and not Y. This might provide one quick lump sum to Y and fulfill any percieved obligation on the part of X.

Just one idea. I hope this all works out!

-T.

Tabor wrote:What if X set up a masterclass for only the students who wanted to have a masterclass with Y, but remain completely the students of X? The students could pay a slightly smaller fee (this is, if they chose to do so and completely separate of their lesson fees to X) and attend in a group. Students would be clear in the fact their instructor was X and not Y. This might provide one quick lump sum to Y and fulfill any percieved obligation on the part of X.
-T.

A good solution!

Y seems to want it both ways, working on the music career in Nashville while keeping the safety net back home.

Leaving town was Y's idea, right? Unless there was some kind of contract, I don't see where Y is entitled to anything. It seems rather presumptuous to assume that if you leave town you can come back any time you please and take back your students.

Did X agree to just keep the chair warm? Doesn't sound like it since X has improved on what was inherited from Y. IMHO the studio is now rightfully X's.

X may not want to sever the relationship with Y. So promote a masterclass with Y as a supplement to the lessons with X, for an additional fee. Everybody wins: Y gets money, X retains the studio, and the students have the chance to take a masterclass with the "famous" Y (which also makes the studio more attractive to prospective students).

If Y isn't interested in such an arrangement, I think that's Y's problem. By offering it, X goes beyond any obligation I can see.

If Y decides to come back to town permanently then let him rebuild his own studio. He already did it once, and if he's that famous it should not be a problem.

But, if Y is in fact that famous, why aren't things working out in Nashville?

Just my .02999999999999 cents (inflation, you know)

***

Lisa- The one detail that seems to have been overlooked by most of those responding is the statement that "Y chose X to take over the studio, knowing that he could come back and teach from time to time". If there was, indeed, an agreement of this sort then X should not be surprised if Y decides to do so. If this is not the case, I would agree that it is a poor idea for all except Y. NWD