Student Contract Case Law
Mangla v. Brown University, 1998The student-college relationship is essentially contractual in nature.
Zumbrun v. University of Southern California, 25 Cal.App.3d 1, 101 Cal.Rptr. 499, 504 (1972)The basic legal relation between a student and a private university or college is contractual in nature.
Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992)education is a service rendered on an immensely greater scale than other professional services
Basch v. George Washington University, 1977the relationship between a university and its students is contractual in nature. It is also accepted that the terms set down in a university's bulletin become a part of that contract
Dinu v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 1999That the relationship between a university and its students has a strong, albeit flexible, contractual flavor is an idea pretty well accepted in modern case law
Russell v. Salve Regina College, 938 F.2d 315, 316 (1st Cir.1991)The terms of the contract may include statements provided in student manuals and registration materials
Merrow v. Goldberg, 1987[b]etween a student and a college there is a relationship that is contractual in nature.
Holert v. University of Chicago, 1990Some of the contractual terms and conditions between Holert and the University were embodied in the Graduate School of Business' Announcements catalog and its Dean of Students Handbook, as well as in the University's Student Information Manual
Fellheimer v. Middlebury College, 1994Between a student and a college there is a relationship which is contractual in nature. E.g.,
Babcock v. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989;The school publications, including the school handbook, create a contract that is subject to judicial review
NASPA Journal, Vol. 40, no. 1,
Fall 2002, by Dennis E. Gregory
The Student Handbook, Federal Law, and Electronic Technology