Here in NY (not sure if this applies to any other state) students in grades 11 and 12 can take AP courses which are college courses. These courses go towards their college degree, so even at age 17 and 18 these students are considered college students while attending high school.
Someone else mentioned homeschooling, I'm wondering how that would be interpreted by the casino since they aren't formally enrolled in a public/private educational institution?
That might be the next one to hit. Many full time courses can be done from home, and it is NOT only the "mature student" doing them, but many young people who find they cannot get a job after leaving school may decide to do something along the lines of the UK's "Open University", which offers proper full time courses done at home for a fraction of the cost of actually attending a college or university. These will STILL be "full time students", yet depending on the nature of the course, and the provider, will not know whether they are still classed as students under CW banning criteria.
In the threads discussing this, the CW rep was asked to say what they were trying to achieve in formulating a replacement term, but the question was not answered. Instead WE had to ASSUME what they were trying to achieve when making suggestions, and it seems we STILL have a term that is open to misinterpretation.
The ONLY thing cleared up was that this did NOT apply to students over the age of 25, who would be students studying after having been in the jobs market.
It is a weakness that many consumers DON'T read the terms and conditions when they buy something, or take out a contract. This is something the industries need to address, and using PLAIN ENGLISH and BREVITY in their terms would be a fantastic start.
Many people don't read "smallprint" because it is very lengthy, and often seems to be written in a foreign language taught only to lawyers. Instead, they rely on the concept of trust, that the smallprint is NOT there to "screw them", and is there merely for "legal reasons" that need not concern them. They rely on the HEADLINE descriptions when deciding whether they want to buy the item, or take out the contract.
This has been recognised in consumer law, and there are boundaries that "smallprint" may NOT cross, so there is at least SOME protection for those who are tricked by the advertising into taking out something unsuitable. The law also has the concept of something having been "mis sold", and this allows a contract, however watertight, to be set aside by the courts or the regulator.
It is the LACK of such consumer protection online that creates problems with internet based services. Many consumers think the same standards apply to the internet as they do in B & M life, and forget that it is still the "wild west" in the internet world.
Businesses that take advantage of the naivety of consumers deserve the "bashing" they get. It is no defence to claim "the customer should have............", because customers are NOT legally trained, and may not even be aware of what they should have done unless someone tells them first, or after their first experience of a problem after NOT doing something.
Ordinary people CANNOT just "go ask their lawyer" when they meet terms they don't understand, this is something only the RICH would have routine access to (a family lawyer on permanent retainer at their beck & call), or a BUSINESS (a legal department, including a "house" lawyer or two).
Whilst they SHOULD decline to take out a contract they don't understand, most will GO AHEAD and hope for the best.
Even if we DID have our own lawyers, the casinos just use "the spirit of" defence, and claim what was written was NOT what they actually MEANT.
.
). This is because the "trigger" of this circumstance coming to light is a withdrawal and not a deposit.
