NYDB
Well-known member
yeah. total bullshit. Then they tell you, make sure and tip bigly! (since we don't pay them anything)
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
"Guerilla" Ski Instruction
- Thread starter deadheadskier
- Start date
As for the theft of services a good example would be you can rent skis 3rd party and use them on the mountain. But you can’t have a 3rd parry rental shack set up at the base of the mountain. Same goes for food. Thats where the theft of services argument could come in, I’m no lawyer though just my opinion.
urungus
Well-known member
But guerrilla ski instructors are not setting up an office on the mountain, so IMO it is the same as getting off mountain rentals or food
If you are in online groups for a mountain offering rouge lessons I’d consider that akin to physically being there doing it.
That's kind of what I'm thinking. The ski schools are understaffed because they pay dirt. Customers feel ripped off paying $800 or whatever per day for private lessons at the major resorts.
So, it makes the environment ripe for a disgruntled former resort instructor to just post a Craigslist ad or whatever stating, "Private ski lessons, call for rates and locations." And the resorts gouging creates a market of people looking for a better deal. They hook up with the freelancer and pay $400 to ski with them for the day.
Maybe the guilty parties get around it by saying, "I'm not a ski instructor. I'm an emotional support skier. Little Jimmy gets very nervous on the black diamonds, so I'm here to calm him."
On the snow babysitter/emotional support skier
You don’t have to sign a liability waiver either
"Theft of services" seems like a stretch, especially if the claim is against the instructor. Trespassing combined with something like unjust enrichment makes more sense conceptually. The guerrilla instructor is making money using the resort's lifts and trails and other property in ways that are prohibited by the resort.
Zermatt
Active member
In Europe it's common to have many ski schools operating on the same mountain. I do think they need to be certified though.
Smellytele
Well-known member
Not trespassing because they either have a pass or a day ticket but isn’t stealing any services per say either. They are not using any services from the mountain they didn’t pay for.
Zermatt
Active member
If it's National Forest land they likely don't have a permit to conduct ski instruction. If it's private land then the land owner has full control.
And this is what a free market is all about.
I'd have more sympathy for the theft of services argument if the mountains were not gouging customers (outright theft IMO) and paying peanuts to the instructors.
ss20
Well-known member
Exactly
ss20
Well-known member
This would be s good thread to add a poll to.
Your example though still goes to a reason why an instructor would be punished or not able to do it. If someone were to somehow sell their homegrown tomatoes in Shaws and you purchased one, would you (as the consumer) be charged with stealing from the store? That's my whole argument that I have an issue with the "theft of services" claim against the consumer. I get the potential issues for the "provider" of the services. However anytime the question of private instructors comes up online (i.e. on Facebook in the various ski groups), the most common first response is that "it is illegal and you could be charged with theft of services if you hire a private instructor."
I think a potentially more relevant example would be this:
Some grocery stores offer a service where you can have them do the shopping for you. Yet I can also hire a private individual to do errands for me including things like grocery shopping (and just to head off one potential counter-argument, I'm not referring to something like Instacart that partners with the store...I'm referring to something more independent). That's a service the store offers, yet there's absolutely no way they could stop this practice and I see absolutely no law that this would violate.
I can agree with that reason...but again, that's a potential violation for the person providing the service, not a "theft of services" claim against the consumer.
I understand that.
My point is that maybe the business model that makes ski passes stupid cheap and everything else stupid expensive needs revision. Sure they could monitor the mountain to make sure there are no black market lessons going on but who is going to perform that task when they don't have snowmakers, lift attendants or any other support staff?
And how could they prove there was an illicit lesson going on? Make a rule that people cannot ski together?
They are using mountain property and assets for purposes not permitted under the limited license granted under the lift ticket. Purchasing a lift ticket does not give them the right to conduct a business on mountain property using mountain assets. They are entering mountain property with the intent to engage in activities prohibited by the mountain. If that is not trespassing, I'm not sure what is.
Totally agree and I think the rules are more there to scare people than actually have legal ramifications.
Similar threads
