Running head: LAW WRITING

Theodore 1

Law Writing Assignment

Nolan Theodore
University at Buffalo

Introduction

Theodore 2
In the following paper, I will respond to the scenario and questions detailed in Writing
Assignment Option #1. I will first explain the legal viability of an organization using the word
university, including how Trump University may or may have been considered a legal
university based on its location. Next, I will explain that a college or university can indeed by
held responsible for a breach of contract and how Trump University breached contract with its
students. I will then explain the term academic malpractice and whether or not such
malpractice occurred in this scenario provided. Lastly, I will outline the damages the students
should be awarded in this scenario should they be identified by a court of law as victims of fraud.
University or Not: Whats in a Name?
In the provided case, Trump University alleges to promise students access to real estate
experts of whom would be hand-picked by founder Donald Trump, investment funding for real
estate projects, an apprenticeship program, and improved credit scores for enrolled students.
Among other promises were personal supervision by Mr. Trump over the Universitys
management and photographs of students with Mr. Trump. At first glance, it would seem that
Trump University was legally able to use the term university in its title. Phillip Crosby
Associates v. Florida State Board of Independent Colleges (1987) found that a private institution
need not be verified by the Board for the use of the term university if the institution does not
issue an academic degree or offer college-level course credit. It was further determined that the
Board could not prevent organizations or institutions from using the word college or
university in its title, as this was seen by the court as an overreach in government jurisdiction.
Organizations such as barber colleges and the Ringling Brothers Clown College were cited as
institutions which would then require permission from the State which would then be
subsequently denied. However, the scenario listed fails to identify which state the University was

Theodore 3
located in. It is possible that other states in the country may find legal precedent in adjudicating
such cases in favor of the defendant in Phillip Crosby Associates v. Florida State Board of
Independent Colleges (1987). Some states may have accreditation standards inscribed into state
law in order to clearly delineate for its citizens which institutions are licensed degree-granting
institutions and which organizations are not. For instance, the state of New York provides a list
of terms, including university, college, and school that are restricted in the title of a
business corporation, not-for profit corporation, limited liability company, and/or limited
partnership (New York Department of State, n.d.).
Contractual Promises
There is significant legal precedence for universities and colleges being held responsible
for breach of contract. In Johnson v. Lincoln Christian College (1986), a Lincoln Christian
College (LCC) student (Johnson) filed a lawsuit against the institution for breach of contract
because the College refused to issue him a diploma despite following all academic requirements.
Though the courts originally ruled in favor of LCC, the appellate court ruled in favor of Johnson.
The courts reasoning was founded upon the belief that there is a traditional contract between a
college and its institution: as long as a student abides by the institutions rules and fulfills the
academic requirements listed for a degree, an institution cannot in bad faith or arbitrarily refrain
from bestowing the aforementioned degree. In Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School (1977), a
breach of contract was also found when the Chicago Medical School failed to evaluate applicants
to the School on the advertised criteria for admission and instead considered the ability of
applicants to make monetary contributions to the school beyond the $15 application fee.
There are also a significant number of cases in which universities and colleges were not
found to be in breach of contract (Ross v. Creighton University, 1992; Vought v. Teachers

Theodore 4
College, Columbia University, 1987) based on the facts of each individual case. In this scenario,
Trump University would be breaching its contract with its students. Assuming that the program
features and opportunities were either advertised or embedded in the enrollment process, failing
to follow-through would not only result in breach of contract but most likely fraud as well.
Academic Malpractice
Academic or educational malpractice is a claim that is rarely recognized in the courts
when considering cases in which students sue the institution of which they have enrolled. In
Ross v. Creighton University (1992), the plaintiff alleged educational malpractice had occurred
because the University failed to provide Ross with an education and failed to prepare Ross for
employment after higher education. Creighton University, an accredited institution, was not
found to be responsible for educational malpractice as the responsibility to perform the duties of
a student rested with Ross. It has been said that a claim for educational malpractice in the courts
would exemplify an overextension of judicial power to supervise educational policy and daily
operations of an institution of learning (Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School Dist., 1979).
When considering the case presented, it is likely that academic malpractice is the
incorrect mode in which to identify the unlawful actions taking place at Trump University.
Montana is the only state that recognizes a claim of educational malpractice, but only because of
state statues which place the duty of care on educators (Ross v. Creighton University, 1992).
Because the students make a claim regarding the quality of their education as opposed to the
inability of an educator to properly execute duty of care, this claim would assuredly fail.
Conclusion: Damages to be Awarded

Theodore 5
In conclusion, it is within the realm of possibility that Trump University could use the
name university. Based on the state in which the institution was located, the standards of whether
or not the institution was legal may change. Furthermore, there is legal precedence in which
universities and colleges are held accountable for breach of contract in the United States judicial
system. Indeed, Trump University would be held responsible in a court of law for failing to
deliver on advertised promises of unique educational opportunities, project investments, and
other program features. However, this should not be misconstrued as educational malpractice. A
claim of educational malpractice would likely fail in a court of law, whereas claiming a breach of
contract and perhaps even fraud could yield favorable results. In the end, damages awarded to
these students, should they be found to be victims of fraud, would include a monetary refund for
the tuition they have paid. In addition, the students could also argue that the time they had spent
at the institution could have been spent elsewhere towards a more productive outcome. This
delay or, to be blunt, waste of time on the part of the students could also result in financial
compensation based on the amount of time enrolled at Trump University.

References

Theodore 6
Department of State, Division of Corporations, State Records, & UCC (n.d.). Restricted or
prohibited words and phrases. Retrieved from
http://www.dos.ny.gov/corps/restricted_words.html
Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School District, 47 N.Y.2d (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)
Johnson v. Lincoln Christian College, 501 N.E.2d 1380 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)
Philip Crosby Associates v. Florida State Board of Independent College, 506 So. 2d 490 (Fla.
App. 1987)
Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992)
Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School, 371 N.E.2d 634 (Ill. 1977)
Vought v. Teachers College, Columbia University, 511 N.Y.S. 2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)