Jwlinson,
I perhaps see different payment plans than you do. Under your Illinois scenario, if your monthly payment plan is less than $50 and you pay only once a month, then no bond would seem to be required. But what if your monthly payment is $75? Is your interpetation of the Illinois statute that a bond would NOT be required? Also, I've rarely seen monthly payment plans outside of chain studios. More often, I've seen Independents that will typically do something like sell a 10-punch card for, say $600, a $100 savings off of 10 regularly priced lessons. So - there you have a prepayment greater than $50 - I would think that bonding might be required in that instance. What do you think? (I'm not trying to be difficult or snooty with my questions, so please don't take offense - I'm really curious as to how that would work in your state)
Also, if I paid that much in advance, I actually WOULD like something in writing that set out the terms - beyond a little 10-punch ticket. I once came very close to losing money to an independent that unexpectedly closed its doors.
I have yet to run across an independent that will give me anything in writing for prepaid lessons - therefore I pay only as I go, and have had no problems.

JWlinson,
Re: your Flordia scenario - I don't understand your reasoning that "small" montly payment plans are exempt. Your extract states that installment payment plans ARE subject to having mechanisms for refunds - it doesn't seem to specify any threshhold sum. I think that you and I are interpreting "OR" differently.
Again, I'm not trying to be offensive - I'm just trying to understand, having once come really close to being burned by an independent studio.

Jwlinson,
Just one more part of your post that I don't understand: the part about studios that "don't" require contracts. Even if there isn't a written contract, there is still an agreement (a contract) that the teacher supply a service and I pay a fee.
My interpretation of the statutes you addressed is that they do require WRITTEN contracts (maybe the studios dont' want to. . . .) So, the state specifies when a written contract is required, not the studio. Could you explain your reasoning more in depth? (Again, I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm trying to understand - we must sound like a couple of lawyers arguing a case over a single word or comma!)

In any case, once, a long, long time ago I did take one single lesson at a chain studio located in Illinois. Even though I paid after the lesson, the studio owner still had me sign a contract. By the way, that studio was bonded and that studio owner was the one who told me to look out for the various state laws regulating dance studios and to be aware. (Land of Lincoln, yes?)

Re: your point about contracts:
I define any sort of contract as written. Verbal agreements are just that. I'm agreeing to pay them, they're agreeing to fulfill the service I'm paying for. When I pay the person who mows my yard, I'm entering the same type of agreement with no written contract.

The statute is written as thus:
Sec. 4. Contract requirements: written contract. Every contract for dance studio services shall be in writing.

I'm interpreting this as "in the case where a contract is needed, it is to be written and not verbal." If no contract is required, as is the case with a one-hour lesson or a one-month package, then that would not fall under this statute. I don't see myself entering into a contractual obligation when I pay my month-to-month package fee.

Re: Payment plans and bonding:
While rereading, I found another point of argument. It says "for the benefit of any person who has entered into a contract." As the definitions state, any contract must be in writing, and since a verbal agreement for services is not a contract then this requirement is null. I can see where that definition of "contract" as opposed to a simple "verbal agreement" could be called into question if and when this statute were to ever go to court.

Re: Florida:
I'm interpreting this as:
If I have to pay in excess of $250 in advance, then there must be a security requirement. If I enter into an installment contract then there must be a security requirement. If I pay a monthly non-contractual fee of $249 where it's known that at the end of the month neither party is obligated to continue any business whatsoever (verbal agreement) then there is no security requirement. The monthly payments I make to my studio are not contractual installments. If after that month I don't pay, then I don't receive service. If I don't pay my lawn mower guy, then he doesn't mow my lawn. Since we had no contract, that's perfectly acceptable.

Can you agree with me that these statutes were created just for those chain studios where a contract is required, to protect those consumers who could be lulled into actually paying large sums and being trapped by a written agreement? I don't see in the IL law where it specifically states a written contract is required at all. It only lists the requirements that any written contract is to have.

A few studios I've read about online advertise "no contracts" and still have monthly or hourly pay plans. If this statute forced those to have written contracts, I'm sure action would have already been taken against them.

I'm not being snippy either, and I don't believe you are. I actually enjoy an educated debate, especially where legalese is concerned.

jwlinson,
Ah - then our fundamental difference in interperation is actually about what a "contract" is. To me, any agreement, whether verbal or written, is a contract. When it gets written down, it's just more formal than a verbal agreement. So, when you promise to pay your lawn-mower $10 after he mows your lawn, it's a contract - it may be a verbal contract, but it's still a contract. If you don't pay him after he performs the service, he can sue you for failing to live up to your end of the agreement - like a contract. (Makes it easier for him to sue if all the terms of the agreement are in writing, but he can still go forward with his claim even if it's a verbal agreement).
Likewise, if I agree to pay my dance instructor $60 for an hour of teaching, it's a contract (an agreement, a promise) and some state laws require that those agreements be "formalized" into a written form.
Perhaps someone has one of those law dictionaries lying around.. . .

Laws and ethics are two different things. Besides that, I'm not finding any evidence to support your claims, Clary.

We're fortunate enough to have a good studio with competent teachers with everything we want to know under one roof. Lucky thing, too- I don't have such confidence in other area venues.

Review your dance goals carefully, as someone else already said. If you don't want to do something, don't get yourself roped into it. Or chained, rather.

DivaGinger,
I'm not sure what claims you're seeking support for. If you mean state laws - well, do a yahoo search with the words "dance studio act" and add in particular states such as Florida and Illinois.
If you're seeking support for getting money back for pre-paid lessons that you aren't going to use, well, I grant you that is rather anecdotal. But I have known some people who "thought" they could get their money back from an independent studio and were told no. Perhaps a written contract would have helped them - or perhaps a state law could have helped them.

Never said I was looking to get money back, but really, I see no legitimate reason why someone *should* get money back. If they could, it'd just give people an opportunity to welch out on a deal. For every "crooked studio owner", there are a few crooked students who just can't hang with it, and want a pat on the back when they bail.

In extenuating circumstances like sickness or inclement weather, the FAIR thing for a studio to do would be to offer compensation in lessons of some form. I personally don't consider a move across country something for which you need reimbursement- not if you know how to schedule and plan to use the lessons up before departure.

I was meaning to ask- why do you (and others) take lessons from a myriad of different studios simultaneously? It seems quite popular, and I was wondering if it was to get a "dance fix" on the off-nights of the home studio, or what.

DivaGinger,
At present, I take lessons from two different teachers, both independents. They each have different strengths and emphasize different things, so I try to pull from both. One is good with movement; the other is great with shape; one is a stickler for footwork; the other pays more attention to topline. One gives me lots of specific dance drills to work on when I practice alone for footwork and such; the other suggests more cross-discipline kinds of things for overall movement. And, yes, each one knows that I take lessons with the other.
It's a situation that works for me. It's not necessarily the way other students would want to take lessons.

DivaGinger,
It's not always a case of either the studio owner or the student trying to be crooked. Lay-offs happen; relocations happen. So, it would be good to have an agreement that if I need to cancel a service, that I'm not going to eat a pre-payment.
After all, my mechanic doesn't expect pre-payment; my hairdresser doesn't expect pre-payment for her services; my accountant doesn't have a 10-punch card for pre-payment of tax preparation services. If I move or get injured or sick, I don't have to seek reimbursment for services that have not yet been provided.
Yet, dance instructors should be able to get paid for services that aren't performed? I don't quite understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate a bit? (I'm just trying to understand, not start a "snippy-fest").