553 F.Supp.3d 259
W.D. Pa.2021Background
- Four students (putative class) paid tuition/fees for Point Park University's on‑campus Spring 2020 semester; PPU also offers a lower‑cost online program.
- PPU’s Financial Registration Terms and Conditions (FRTC) documents students’ payment obligations but contains no express reciprocal promise to provide in‑person instruction.
- In March 2020 PPU moved on‑campus instruction online due to COVID‑19 and largely withheld tuition/fee refunds (some prorated housing refunds limited).
- Plaintiffs sued seeking partial reimbursement: breach of contract (implied‑in‑fact from promotional materials and course of conduct), alternatively unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, and conversion; Defendant moved to dismiss.
- Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan denied dismissal as to breach of contract and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, and granted dismissal as to conversion; educational‑malpractice argument rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a contract for in‑person, on‑campus education | P plaintiffs: PPU's website, catalogs, admissions materials + course of performance created an implied‑in‑fact contract to provide in‑person instruction for which students paid a premium | PPU: FRTC is the operative agreement and only binds students to pay; no reciprocal promise to deliver in‑person services | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged an implied contract based on promotional materials, course of conduct, and reasonable expectations; denial of dismissal |
| Educational malpractice defense | P plaintiffs: claim is contractual (non‑judicial) — seeking restitution for non‑delivery, not review of academic decisions | PPU: claims attack pedagogical choices and academic quality, barred as educational malpractice | Court: Claim framed as breach of contract/unjust enrichment, not educational malpractice; defense rejected at pleading stage |
| Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit (alternative) | P plaintiffs: alternatively plead quasi‑contract because discovery may show no enforceable express contract or partial failure of consideration | PPU: adequate remedy at law (contract) and insufficient factual pleading | Court: Rule 8(d) allows pleading in the alternative; plaintiffs stated plausible unjust enrichment/quantum meruit claim; denial of dismissal |
| Conversion (refund of tuition/fees) | P plaintiffs: PPU wrongfully retained funds and should disgorge pro rata tuition/fees | PPU: conversion inapplicable where dispute arises from contract and funds are not specifically identifiable | Court: Conversion requires identifiable/segregated funds and is not a substitute for contract damages; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebeneck & Eck, P.LL.C. v. Law Firm of Malone Middleman, P.C., 137 A.3d 1247 (Pa. 2016) (elements of breach of contract)
- Swartley v. Hoffner, 734 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) (student‑university relationship is contractual and contract terms may be found in institutional publications)
- Cavaliere v. Duff's Business Institute, 605 A.2d 397 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (distinguishing educational malpractice from breach of specific contractual promises)
- McCabe v. Marywood University, 166 A.3d 1257 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) (examining university publications and materials as terms of implied contract)
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Razumic, 390 A.2d 738 (Pa. 1978) (course of performance relevant to interpreting contractual writings)
- Reardon v. Allegheny College, 926 A.2d 477 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (treating student‑college breach claims as ordinary contract disputes)
- Pioneer Commercial Funding Corp. v. American Financial Mortgage Corp., 855 A.2d 818 (Pa. 2004) (conversion of funds requires identifiability/segregation)