<p>Calmom, I apologize for my terminology, but why can’t the school sue for breach of contract and have a court determine the amount of monetary damages? </p>
<p>Is a key element of a valid contract the specification of the amount of damages in the event of a breach? If so, I didn’t know that. Thanks.</p>
<p>re post 1743:</p>
<p>Yes, there is an ethical dimension; and I have argued as much earlier in the thread. But it does not apply in the case of youtubefan. YTF’s d fully intended to matriculate if the financial package made it possible. We have no information that she has received a more desirable offer or is applying EA elsewhere and waiting to see if more money will come her way. Absent such information, I believe the OP acted in good faith and has every right to walk away from an inadequate financial offer. “Inadequate” being from the perspective of the family and not the college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Paying $200,000 and 4 years of a persons life is “onerous” as compared to the slight benefit of getting an admissions decision from a college in February rather than March. </p>
<p>Courts hardly ever will enforce contracts that require individuals to DO something (attend a specific school, take a specific job, etc.) as opposed to pay money damages. There are exceptions, but they are very narrow and apply in cases where the something needing to be done is very unique, and the party that has contracted for such services has acted to their detriment in reliance on that agreement. It wouldn’t apply in the college admissions context. </p>
<p>Money damages need to be proven up by the party seeking them and need to be real and actual. The college would have to be able to show how it was harmed by the breach, and translate that into money. As long as the college has more qualified applicants than spots available, it is going to be hard for it to ever prove a case for monetary damages in a court of law.</p>
<p>CRD:</p>
<p>What damage would a college be able to claim when it turns away thousands upon thousands of allegedly qualified applicants (some of whom would be happy to pay full fare)?With ED, the college is free to admit one more from the regular pool.
Even in the case of summer melt, when walking away from a commitment might actually cause damage to a college, I don’t remember colleges suing.
Cross-posted with calmom.</p>
<p>Re post #1760: NewHope, why would anyone apply to a college for an “admissions boost” if they didn’t want to attend? The part you are MISSING is that the student LOSES the opportunity to attend that college, at whatever cost, when they turn down the ED spot. </p>
<p>The whole reason for applying is that the student wants to attend Penn. </p>
<p>The consequence of turning down the spot is that the student absolutely, positively, can NOT attend Penn.</p>
<p>I don’t completely agree with one comment by berryb(post 1752). I don’t think Calmom is offering unethical advice. Not exactly. I think Calmom is offering her specific legal opinion on ED contract, only based on law, without commenting on the ethics. I see a distinction. I would agree in this one specific case that Calmom is likely correct on the penalties in the law, as the student who reneges isn’t going to jail, nor will the college be permitted to come to the family and write themself a check. So the act of reneging for the OP would likely be legal, but, I believe unethical. Too much about the Op has come about, at least enough, that I believe the ED school has offered a workable fin aid- but the Op now likes a more generous offer better. A second, better offer doesn’t make the first offer unworkable. Some here indicate that absolutely anything a person can do within the law is ethical. Those who believe the 10 Commandments would disagree. Would anyone argue it is right thing to do to commit adultery? Not many. I know this case isn’t adultery but I give the example that ethics- the body of good or bad behavior- isn’t always determined by law. And yes, I am aware of the concept of situational ethics.
I guess I’ll disagreee with Momof3 when she says families that are more tolerant of ambiguities can still be considered ethical if they do not accept an offer they are unhappy with financially. Doing all you can, but then being surprised is one thing. However, her phrasing sounds to me much like the phrase I posted pages ago that “none so blind as those who will not see”. I’m repeating here too, but I just don’t see choosing not to seek to eliminate ambiguities as much as possible before entering a contract as acting in good faith. This layman would define Acting in good faith as the belief and the representation to the other party that one is willing able, and intends to follow the contract. To close one’s eyes in order not to see conditions just doesn’t feel right. It’s like a little kid that puts his hand in front of his eyes then says “you can’t see me!” Plainly put, I think choosing to be ignorant then entering a contract is unethical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What about $25K for 1 term?
What about $500 for the deposit?</p>
<p>I see the principle though, thanks. </p>
<p>Could they have had a $500 application fee, $450 of which would be applied to your first terms tuition and otherwise refundable if you were denied?</p>
<p>As far as my agreeing with berryberry61, sorry, I thought it was happening. I was wrong. Keep on trying though. :-)</p>
<p>CRD asked:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They can. But the burden of proof would be on the college to prove actual financial loss. The college is also under a legal duty to “mitigate” damages – that is, they can’t just hold open the space and sue for tuition. They have to do their best to fill the spot. In the case of Penn, that wouldn’t be difficult. (Although the common practice would be to fill from the RD pool, another option would be to contact a student from the ED pool who had been deferred, and offer them the spot if they will agree to make an early deposit --most of the deferred kids would jump at the chance). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The term “liquidated damages” refers to a an amount of damages that is specified in advance. That doesn’t have to be proven, because the parties have agreed in advance to that amount (but it does have to be reasonable in relation to the harm it is supposed to protect against). </p>
<p>So there are two options: either the parties agree to “liquidated” damages in advance, or else whichever party is doing the suing has to go to court to prove actual monetary loss in order to collect money from whichever party is being sued.</p>
<p>Thanks Calmom, I just learned something!</p>
<p>I’ll jump in before Calmom and try to answer CRD’s question post 1761. This is a laymans point of view of course. In the example you gave, student likely did break the contract. Could college sue? American law permits most anyone to sue over most anything. But would they? Should they? As I see it, college might sue if they had real damages($) they wanted to recover. Likely they don’t. If one student reneges, they probably have thousands ready to take his place. I can’t picture a college willing to take a student to cout to win a $1 judgment. That is a common judgment for a plaintiff that wins his <em>point to prove</em> but has suffered no real economic loss.</p>
<p>Of course, my feeling that choosing not to take it to cout is not commenting on the legality of the students’ actions or the morality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not correct. As a private school, we too have contracts both parties must abide by. We have been successful numerous times in court and awarded monetary damages for parents who changed their mind on admission and breached our contract even when we had other applicants to fill spots. Perhaps the courts in California take a far more liberal view of things but calmom should not be making such inaccurate blanket statements. Its dangerous, misleading and inaccurate</p>
<p>What? A college takes parents to court over an ED student declining acceptance? Which ones?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t want to be part of any college that would seriously take parents to court for not accepting the Early Decision offer</p>
<p>omg that Calmom is fast! I’m happy to see she and I agree on the legality and liklihood of a school suing a reneging student. She and I haven’t agreed with each other much on this thread. But differing opinions can exist, even among honorable people.</p>
<p>“The whole reason for applying is that the student wants to attend Penn.”</p>
<p>Calmom - This is where we part company. Students apply to schools for lots of reasons, not just because they actually want to attend. (If your statement is universally true, the thread OP would have accepted admission to UPenn … unless of course one subscribes to the “smart enough to get into UPenn but too stupid to understand ED” viewpoint, which I’m sure you don’t.)</p>
<p>Many many pages ago, many people have said a student cannot be forced to attend a school he does not want to attend.
Welcome to the discussion Cali.</p>
<p>CRD</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You should have stuck with your first inclination. It would have probably been the first time you were right on this thread :). It really amazes me how some folks take calmom’s word as gospel. Calmom has been wrong often on this thread and her legal conclusion here is also wrong. If things are spelled out enough (and in the example we are talking about, it appears this is the case), college’s if they wish can indeed sue for breach of contract and can be successful. There are a ton of proven cases from private schools in this regard across the country. The same principle applies.</p>
<p>Now I personally doubt anyone would be successful in winning a settlement for 4 years of tuition, but an award equivalent to 1 year’s tuition is very probable</p>
<p>CRD’s posts 1757 and follow up 1761 posed a “what if” question, Mom4college. People here are trying to answer his questions.
Welcome to our discussion, Mom4</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually that is what things may come to in the future if applicants keep playing fast and loose with the ED rules.</p>
<p>Ohio law also requires a plaintiff to mitigate damages, and to prove monetary losses in a breach. I have had to do this many times as a landlord here in Ohio. When tenants skip out early in a lease, I have to try for a replacement, and I have to specifically document what their breach cost me- such as rent lost, advertising for new tenant, damages to unit, utilities I had to pay while unit was vacant, etc.</p>