Abrams v. Illinois College of Podiatric Medicine
77 Ill. App. 3d 471, 1979 Ill. App. LEXIS 3404, 395 N.E.2d 1061 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Vague oral assurances and non-mandatory policy statements in a student handbook do not constitute definite, enforceable terms of a contract between a student and a private educational institution.
Facts:
- In early 1973, Jonathan M. Abrams was admitted to the Illinois College of Podiatric Medicine (College).
- During his first semester, Abrams failed the course Physiology 101 and subsequently failed the re-examination.
- The College's Academic Review Committee placed Abrams on strict academic probation for his second semester and assigned him a reduced course load.
- The College allegedly told Abrams that "everything would be done to assist [him], including figuring out some way to help him."
- During his second semester, while on strict probation, Abrams failed to attain passing grades in two courses.
- On June 14, 1974, the College notified Abrams that he was being dismissed due to his academic performance.
Procedural Posture:
- Jonathan M. Abrams (plaintiff) filed a breach of contract action against the Illinois College of Podiatric Medicine (defendant) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, a trial court.
- The College filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause of action as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted the College's motion and dismissed Abrams' complaint with prejudice.
- Abrams (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private college breach its contract with a student by dismissing him for poor academic performance when the alleged contract terms are based on a vague oral statement of support and non-mandatory provisions in the student handbook?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Linn
No, the College did not breach its contract. A binding contract between a student and a private college requires definite and certain terms. The College's oral statement that it would 'assist' Abrams was too vague and indefinite to create an enforceable contractual obligation. Similarly, a provision in the Student Handbook stating that an instructor 'should periodically inform the student of his progress' was merely an unenforceable expression of intention or hope, not a binding promise. Finally, the College did not violate the re-examination policy, as the College Catalog clarified this policy applied only to a single failed course per semester; since Abrams failed two courses, he was not entitled to re-examinations.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the contractual nature of the student-university relationship by emphasizing the contract law principle of definiteness. It establishes that not all statements or handbook provisions create legally binding obligations; courts will distinguish between enforceable promises and unenforceable, aspirational statements. This gives educational institutions significant deference in academic matters, protecting them from breach of contract claims based on vague assurances or discretionary policies. Future cases will likely require students to point to highly specific and mandatory language in university materials to succeed on a breach of contract claim related to academic dismissal.
