Question for MJ's Lawyers

[saint]

I read this post at another board. Basically, the dental school (Loma Linda) admitted the student for next years class and then revoked it after learning they had taken some of the pre-reqs more than 5 years ago. Granted, it does say that is necessary on their website but not on their admissions page...it's deep in the site. However, they failed to act on it during the entire admissions process, the interview process, and the acceptance process. This person even had their deposit check cashed. Is an acceptance letter a legal document? Does the fact that $$ was cashed by the school make them liable? This student turned down other schools and no is shit out of luck. They are going to speak to the dean Monday but have sought council. I was very curious about this one... here is their post.

The most ridiculous thing is that the reason some of the pre-reqs were over 5 years is that the person has been completing a masters or PhD and the classes were their freshman year of undergrad. It's not even like they took time off!

Hi
I am in panic attack right now.
I was accepted to a school in Jan.
Recently they sent me a letter saying that I took my prerequisites more than 5 years ago so they are aborting my acceptance.
I have not seen any indication on this any where.
And I am just shocked and don't know what to do.

Do you guys know what I should do now?
Or do any of you guys know that there is any place that I can finish all these prerequisites in June to Aug?
Please help me.

 

[saint]

bumpity bump :sadwave:

 

[DR STRANGELOVE]

I am no contracts expert yet, but was the cheque cashed more than 90 days ago?

I am off to bed, but I recall a case that was very similar to this, will look it up tomorrow.

Off the top of my head, student should win here, given that they sent him a letter (offer) and cheque cashed (acceptance). there is a mutual "MEETING OF THE MINDS" here.

But I have a feeling that the requirements will play a role, but school should have caught this before making him/her an offer of admission.

 

[Sun Tzu]

School wins if they choose to keep him out. He is SOL. To the extent there is a "contract" - which is questionable - there are prerequisites to its terms. The student didnt meet those, and, at least legally, "fraudulently induced"the contract by representing the terms had been met, on an application or otherwise.

 

[taoist]

...would tend to agree with Sun Tzu, although arguments could be made on both sides. Certainly, mistake (mutual or unilateral) would be a defense to the breach of contract claim...and contrary to Doc's opinion, I would aver that there was in fact never any meeting of the minds. I would guess that the school would prevail in this situation 80-90% of the time...although I suspect that the student will receive a refund for any monies paid to the school...and if he is lucky, he might receive some minimal (if any) damages for having to sit out an entire year due to the acceptance letter and foregoing the opportunity to attend the other schools, assuming that he was in fact admitted to said other schools.

 

[cooz3]

How did the student commit fraud ? reading the post it would seem that the student provided the necc. information and the school did not realize IT made a mistake until subsequent to the acceptance...maybe I'm reading the post incorrectly..?

That being said ..there are other remedies besides alleging breach of contract.....there is certainly equitable relief ( Section 90 Promissory Estoppel ..remember lawschool..lol..brutal) ..etc..and def. the person should get their money back regarding the deposit..unless he/she purposely withheld the info ..that would be a different story...


there is clearly a "condition precedent" regarding the acceptance of each student regarding the pre-requisites..which in turn would make a contract claim a tough avenue to take...

the other question that should be asked to the school is simply was the intent of the language regarding the time limits on pre-requisites for individuals who simply were not pursuing additional education ? or also to apply for those individuals seeking further education such as this case...its a stretch and probably wont matter but it seems harsh to apply the same strict interpretation to individuals still pursuing additional degrees..


cooz

 

[saint]

Thanks guys