Bloch v. Hillel Torah North Suburban Day School
55 Ill. Dec. 651, 426 N.E.2d 976, 100 Ill. App. 3d 204 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract for educational services at a private school is considered a personal service contract. As such, courts will not grant specific performance to compel a school to educate an expelled student; the proper remedy for a breach of such a contract is an action for monetary damages.
Facts:
- Helen Bloch was a grade school student enrolled at Hillel Torah North Suburban Day School, a private Jewish school.
- Helen's parents believed the school uniquely corresponded to their desired religious commitments for their daughter's education.
- In the middle of the 1980 school year, the school expelled Helen.
- Helen's parents alleged the expulsion was an act of bad faith, motivated by the school's disapproval of their role in organizing parents to combat a head lice epidemic.
- Hillel Torah contended that Helen was expelled for excessive tardiness and absences in accordance with school regulations.
- The parties disputed the contract's duration; the parents believed enrollment implied an eight-year commitment, while the school argued the contract was only for a single school year.
Procedural Posture:
- Helen Bloch's parents (plaintiffs) brought an action against Hillel Torah North Suburban Day School (defendant) in the circuit court of Cook County.
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop the expulsion and an order for specific performance of the school's contract to educate Helen.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.
- Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant school, but gave plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint for money damages.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Illinois 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 contract between a private grade school and a student for educational services qualify for the equitable remedy of specific performance upon an alleged breach by the school?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. JUSTICE McNamara
No. A contract for a private school to educate a student is a personal service contract for which specific performance is an inappropriate remedy. The court reasoned that the relationship between a grade school and its student is highly personal in nature and requires the rendition of various personal services. Courts traditionally refuse to order specific performance for such contracts for three main reasons: 1) the legal remedy of monetary damages is considered adequate; 2) enforcing and supervising the order would be problematic for the court and could lead to protracted litigation; and 3) the concept of compelling the continuation of a personal relationship that one party resists is repugnant, akin to a form of involuntary servitude. The court distinguished this case from others where schools were compelled to issue a degree, as issuing a degree is a single, ministerial act marking the end of a relationship, not the forced continuation of one.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the traditional rule against specific performance for personal service contracts to the context of private elementary education. It affirms that while a student may have a valid breach of contract claim against a private school for wrongful expulsion, the remedy is limited to monetary damages. The ruling protects the autonomy of private educational institutions by preventing courts from becoming entangled in supervising the complex, personal relationships between students and schools. It effectively channels these disputes away from equitable remedies that would force an unwilling association and towards legal remedies that compensate for financial harm.
