Reported / Citable
Background
Findlay Grant and Christian Walsh were enrolled students at Chapman University when COVID-19 spread in California in early 2020. Like many universities, Chapman closed its campus and shifted to online instruction in March 2020, following local lockdown orders. For Fall 2020, Chapman initially announced its ‘goal’ to reopen and offer a mix of in-person, online, and hybrid classes; ultimately, it concluded it could not get the necessary approvals and continued with remote instruction. Plaintiffs remained enrolled and graduated.
Plaintiffs sued Chapman for breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices, seeking partial tuition refunds. They pointed to the registration portal showing class times and locations, a credit-hour policy referencing weekly ‘face-to-face contact,’ faculty handbook statements about on-campus teaching, descriptions of campus facilities (with disclaimers that those descriptions were not the basis of a contract), and Chapman’s historical practice of offering primarily in-person instruction.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Chapman, relying on Berlanga v. University of San Francisco. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Under California implied-contract law, an implied promise by a university is enforceable only if it is ‘specific’ rather than a ‘general expectation.’ The court reviewed each of plaintiffs’ identified statements and practices and concluded none was specific enough to constitute an enforceable implied promise of in-person education.
The course-registration portal listing class locations was descriptive rather than a contractual commitment to those locations. The credit-hour policy’s reference to ‘face-to-face contact’ described typical practice rather than promising face-to-face contact in every circumstance. Faculty handbook statements about on-campus teaching govern faculty obligations to the university, not the university’s obligations to students. The campus-facilities descriptions in catalogs were expressly disclaimed as ‘not . . . the basis of a contract.’ And Chapman’s historical practice of in-person instruction did not, by itself, create an enforceable promise to continue that practice in the face of a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Because there was no enforceable implied promise of in-person education, plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract, unjust-enrichment, and UCL claims all failed.
Key Takeaways
- Implied contractual promises by California universities are enforceable only when ‘specific’; general descriptions of facilities, practices, and faculty interactions are insufficient.
- Catalog disclaimers stating that facility descriptions are ‘not the basis of a contract’ are effective and enforceable.
- Historical practice — even very long-standing practice — does not by itself create an implied promise that the practice will continue.
- The decision aligns with the broader California and national trend rejecting most COVID-era university tuition-refund claims based on implied-contract theories.
- Plaintiffs seeking university tuition refunds for COVID-era closures need to identify specific, contractual commitments that the university breached, which is a high bar.
Why It Matters
This decision adds another California voice to the growing consensus that COVID-era tuition-refund claims based on implied contracts of in-person education will generally fail. Universities, both public and private, can take comfort that their catalogs and registration systems do not transform into enforceable contractual promises absent very specific commitments.
For higher-education counsel, the case provides a useful template for protective contract drafting and disclaimers. Catalog disclaimers like the one Chapman used (stating that facility descriptions are not contractual) are effective and should be standard. For students and their counsel considering tuition-refund litigation, the case sharply narrows the available theories and underscores the importance of identifying specific, contractual promises rather than general expectations.