Education – Breach of Contract 
Posted: 1:00 am Mon, March 15, 2010
By admin
Tags: Education
Where two students who were accepted into a university program were advised that they needed to complete some prerequisite courses; a letter from one of the students and from the director of the program discussed offering the prerequisites at the university; and the prerequisite courses were never offered; we conclude that the District Court did not err in granting summary judgment for the university on the students’ breach-of-educational-contract claim because the university never made a specific promise to provide the necessary prerequisite courses at the university.
The students’ additional claims are not subject to judicial review because they involve an inquiry into the nuances of educational process and theory.
Affirmed.
| Case Number | A09-1231 |
| Case Name | Clem v. St. Mary |
| Court | Court of Appeals |
| County | Hennepin County |
| Category | Education |
| Type | Unpublished Civil Opinions |
| URL | http://www.minnlawyer.com/userfiles/pdf/opa091231-0309.htm |
![[Print]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/email_2.png)
![[RSS Feed]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/rssfeed.png)
![[Facebook]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/twitter.png)


POST A COMMENT