This study consisted of a two-phase sequential investigation: a review of the development of legal rights for the American college student through an investigation of the evolution of the student-institution legal relationship, and the analysis and synthesis of both the volume and nature of litigation that addresses a contractual relationship between students and their institutions. The judicial decisions examined covered the period 1970-1985 and focused on controversies involving: tuition, fees, and scholarships; student discipline; academic programs; and academic standards. Judicial decisions in these categories were summarized to identify major points of law and analyzed to extrapolate operational guidelines for campus administrators. / Case law analysis substantiated the following key conclusions: (1) In modern higher education litigation, courts have interpreted contractual terms with considerable flexibility and have generally avoided the interpretation and enforcement of rigid commercial contract principles. Courts have allowed considerable latitude and discretion to institutions in interpreting their own regulations and procedures. (2) Contractual terms of the student-institution relationship are most often implied from the written representations of the institution. Courts have held that express, written statements become binding on the institution when a student has reasonably relied upon those representations. (3) Courts have also held that oral representations made by a campus official who has apparent or delegated authority concerning programs, policies or procedures can be contractually binding on the institution. (4) Courts have rejected a broad interpretation of a comprehensive education contract, but will recognize a specific breach of a contractual commitment for a specific institutional program or procedure. If a court determines that contractual rights were arbitrarily denied, or the student was treated radically different from other students, as when the institution fails to follow established procedures or apply them uniformly, the court may grant relief based upon the terms of an express or implied agreement. (5) Students, operating as consumers of educational services, will continue to challenge academic programs and services that do not coincide with expressed or implied commitments made by the institution or its designated representatives. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 47-08, Section: A, page: 2915. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1986.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_75920 |
| Contributors | ROGERS, JON CHARLES., Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text |
| Format | 232 p. |
| Rights | On campus use only. |
| Relation | Dissertation Abstracts International |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds