Montessori Children's House of Durham v. Blizzard, 244 N.C. App. 633

MCHD (a private Montessori school) and Philip & Patricia Blizzard entered a written 2013–14 Lower Elementary Tuition Agreement enrolling the Blizzards’ daughter and obligating parents to pay $12,610 tuition due July 1, 2013.
The Agreement stated parents are obligated to pay the full year’s tuition and that withdrawal does not reduce liability unless the school requests withdrawal; it referenced compliance with school rules and the Family Handbook.
MCHD’s website and magazine ads described class characteristics (e.g., “Each classroom has up to 20 students” and an elementary student/faculty ratio of 10:1), but those materials were not incorporated into the written Agreement.
After learning the class would be expanded to about 24–25 students for 2013–14, the Blizzards decided their child would not attend and refused to pay tuition; MCHD sued for breach of contract.
The district court entered judgment for MCHD for $12,914.57 plus fees; the Blizzards appealed arguing MCHD breached the contract by increasing class size, excusing their nonpayment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MCHD breached the tuition contract by increasing class size	MCHD argued it complied with the written Agreement and enrolled the child; no contractual term limited future class size	Blizzards argued website/ads and prior oral statements promised a max class size (20) or 10:1 ratio, so MCHD breached and plaintiffs were excused from payment	Court held no breach: Agreement contained no class-size term and did not incorporate website/ads; defendants remained contractually liable for tuition
Whether extrinsic materials (webpage, ads, oral statements) became contract terms	MCHD argued only the written Agreement and any incorporated handbook govern; extrinsic materials were not incorporated	Blizzards argued those materials and pre-enrollment statements should be treated as binding contractual promises	Court held extrinsic materials were not incorporated into the Agreement and did not create enforceable contractual promises
Whether plaintiff’s nonperformance (changing class size) relieved defendants from obligation	MCHD maintained it fulfilled its obligations by enrolling the child and that the contract expressly preserved tuition liability despite nonattendance	Blizzards contended MCHD’s change amounted to anticipatory/actual breach, excusing payment	Court held no contractual breach by MCHD; defendants’ nonpayment was a breach entitling MCHD to damages

Ryan v. Univ. of N.C. Hosps., 128 N.C. App. 300 (holding breach-of-contract claims against educational institutions require identifiable contractual promises)
Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir.) (to state breach, plaintiff must point to an identifiable contractual promise)
Booker v. Everhart, 294 N.C. 146 (discussing incorporation of documents by reference into contracts)
Ussery v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 777 S.E.2d 272 (N.C.) (contracts construed from their four corners; clear terms are questions of law)
Poor v. Hill, 138 N.C. App. 19 (elements of breach of contract)