Thomson v. Board of Trustees of the University of RI
volume_reporter_page_placeholder (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A university's implied contractual duty to provide in-person instruction and services is discharged under the doctrine of frustration of purpose when government orders, such as a pandemic-related lockdown, render performance impracticable. To establish unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must provide evidence that the university inequitably retained a benefit, not merely that the alternative services provided were inferior.
Facts:
- For the spring 2020 semester, Sean Burt and Logan Thomson were enrolled students at the University of Rhode Island (URI).
- The students paid tuition and mandatory fees, which included a student services fee, a technology fee, and a health services fee.
- URI's catalog described what the fees 'covered' or 'supported' and stated that 'Tuition, fees, and policies set forth in this catalog are subject to change without notice.'
- The semester began on January 22, 2020, with in-person instruction and on-campus services.
- In March 2020, the Governor of Rhode Island declared a statewide disaster emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The Governor subsequently issued executive orders prohibiting gatherings and ultimately issued a stay-at-home order.
- In response to the government orders, URI moved all classes online for the remainder of the semester, required most students to vacate campus, closed facilities, and cancelled most in-person student services.
- URI provided partial refunds for housing and meal plans but did not refund tuition or any of the mandatory fees at issue.
Procedural Posture:
- Sean Burt and Logan Thomson filed separate putative class action lawsuits against the Board of Trustees of the University of Rhode Island in federal and state court, respectively.
- Thomson's state court case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, where the two cases were consolidated.
- URI filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted the motion to dismiss the claims related to tuition but denied the motion as to the claims related to mandatory fees.
- Following discovery, URI filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining fee claims.
- The district court granted URI's motion for summary judgment, disposing of all remaining claims in URI's favor.
- The plaintiffs (Burt and Thomson) appealed the district court's dismissal of their tuition claims and the grant of summary judgment on their fee claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
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 breach its contract with students or become unjustly enriched by retaining tuition and mandatory fees when it transitions from in-person to online instruction and closes campus facilities in response to a government-mandated pandemic lockdown?
Opinions:
Majority - Selya, Circuit Judge
No. The university did not breach its contract with students, nor was it unjustly enriched, by retaining tuition and fees after transitioning to remote operations due to a government-mandated pandemic lockdown. While an implied contract for in-person instruction and access to some facilities likely existed, the university's duty to perform was discharged by the doctrine of frustration of purpose. The court found no express contract for in-person instruction, as catalog descriptions were merely 'vague and generalized representations.' However, it found the plaintiffs plausibly alleged an implied contract for in-person instruction based on URI's historical practice and course of dealing. Nevertheless, this contractual duty was discharged because the Governor's emergency orders constituted a supervening event, the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract. These orders made performance impracticable and substantially frustrated the contract's principal purpose. Regarding the fee claims, the court found no express contract promising in-person services. While an implied contract may have existed for access to the Memorial Union, Fitness Center, and transportation, performance was likewise discharged by frustration of purpose. For other fees, no implied contract for in-person services was formed. Finally, the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims failed because they did not provide any evidence to rebut URI's showing that it used the fee revenue to provide alternative services and cover costs, thus failing to demonstrate that URI inequitably retained a benefit.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the significant legal hurdle students face in seeking tuition and fee refunds from universities for pandemic-related disruptions. It powerfully demonstrates the application of the frustration of purpose doctrine as a complete defense for universities, even when a court acknowledges the likely existence of an implied contract for in-person education. The ruling establishes that government-mandated shutdowns are the type of supervening event that can discharge contractual duties. Furthermore, the case underscores the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs in unjust enrichment claims; it is not enough to argue that the substituted performance (online learning) was of lesser value without showing the defendant unjustly profited.
