Basch v. George Washington University
1977 D.C. App. LEXIS 439, 370 A.2d 1364 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Language in a university bulletin concerning future tuition that is qualified with terms like "estimated," "projected," and disclaimers about economic uncertainty is too indefinite to create a binding contractual obligation. Such statements represent a mere expectancy and are not an enforceable promise.
Facts:
- George Washington University provided prospective medical students with a bulletin for the 1974-75 academic year.
- The bulletin set the tuition for that specific year at $3,200.
- The same bulletin stated that future annual tuition increases were "estimated" to be $200 for the next four academic years.
- The bulletin included a disclaimer: "Every effort will be made to keep tuition increases within these limits. However, it is not possible to project future economic data with certainty, and circumstances may require an adjustment in this estimate."
- A class of approximately 500 students enrolled, alleging they did so in partial reliance on these estimates.
- On January 17, 1975, the University's Board of Trustees announced that tuition for the 1975-76 academic year would be increased to $5,000, citing inflation and a projected decrease in federal funding.
Procedural Posture:
- A class of medical students (Appellants) sued George Washington University (Appellee) in the trial court for breach of contract.
- The University filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The trial court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and granted judgment in favor of the University.
- The students appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to this intermediate appellate court.
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 university's bulletin containing estimated future tuition increases, which includes qualifying language that circumstances may require adjustments, create a binding and enforceable contract limiting the university's ability to raise tuition beyond those estimates?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A university's bulletin containing estimated future tuition increases with qualifying language does not create a binding and enforceable contract. The court applied general principles of contract construction, evaluating the document as a whole and giving words their common meaning. The repeated use of words like "estimated" and "projected," combined with the explicit disclaimer that adjustments may be required due to economic uncertainty, renders the language too indefinite to constitute a firm contractual offer. A reasonable person in the position of the students would understand these statements as an expression of expectancy or a goal, not a binding promise susceptible of enforcement.
Concurring - Harris, J.
No. The statements in the University's bulletin concerning future tuition increases were too hedged with qualifications to be considered promises which the University was obligated to perform. While agreeing with the majority's conclusion, this opinion emphasizes that contract interpretation rules serve as guides rather than rigid controls, particularly in the non-commercial context of a university. It also notes that even under the more flexible standards of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and the UCC, which are less demanding about certainty than the Restatement (First) cited by the majority, the language used by the university was still too indefinite to create a binding obligation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the contractual relationship between a university and its students, establishing that not all statements in a university bulletin constitute binding promises. It sets a precedent that universities may provide financial forecasts without being contractually bound by them, provided they use clear qualifying language like "estimate" and include disclaimers. The ruling protects universities from liability due to unforeseen economic circumstances but also places the burden on prospective students to recognize that such projections are not guarantees. This case reinforces the importance of definiteness as a core element of an enforceable contract.
Unlock the full brief for Basch v. George Washington University