Steinberg v. Chi. Med. Sch. - 41 Ill. App. 3d 804, 354 N.E.2d 586 (1976)

Rule:

A contract is an agreement between competent parties, based upon a consideration sufficient in law, to do or not do a particular thing. It is a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty. A contract's essential requirements are: competent parties, valid subject matter, legal consideration, mutuality of obligation and mutuality of agreement. Generally, parties may contract in any situation where there is no legal prohibition, since the law acts by restraint and not by conferring rights. However, it is basic contract law that in order for a contract to be binding the terms of the contract must be reasonably certain and definite.

Facts:

In December 1973 the plaintiff, Robert Steinberg, applied for admission to the defendant, the Chicago Medical School, as a first-year student for the academic year 1974-75 and paid an application fee of $ 15. The Chicago Medical School is a private, not-for-profit educational institution, incorporated in the State of Illinois. His application for admission was rejected and plaintiff filed a class action against the defendant school, claiming that it had failed to evaluate his application and those of other applicants according to the academic entrance criteria printed in the school's bulletin. Specifically, his complaint alleged that the defendant school's decision to accept or reject a particular applicant for the first-year class was primarily based on such nonacademic considerations as the prospective student's familial relationship to members of the school's faculty and to members of its board of trustees, and the ability of the applicant or his family to pledge or make payment of large sums of money to the school. The complaint further alleged that by using such unpublished criteria to evaluate applicants, defendants had breached the contract which plaintiff contended was created when the school accepted his application fee. In his prayer for relief, plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant school, prohibiting the continuation of such admission practices and an accounting of all application fees, donations, contributions and other sums of money collected by the school from its applicants during a 10- year period prior to the filing of his suit. He did not ask the court to direct the school to admit him, to review his application or to return his fee. The defendant school filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because no contract came into existence during its transaction with plaintiff inasmuch as the school's informational publication did not constitute a valid offer. The trial court sustained the motion to dismiss and Steinberg appeals from this order.

Issue:

Was there a contract created when the defendant school accepted plaintiff’s application fee and breached the said contract when they rejected his application?

Answer:

No. The court affirmed the order dismissing all the applicant's counts except breach of contract. The court reversed the order dismissing the breach of contract count, found that a class consisting of all applicants to the medical school for the year 1974-

Conclusion:

The court agreed with the dismissal of all counts except breach of contract, and in reversing the order dismissing that count stated that it believed that the applicant and the school entered into an enforceable contract. The defendant school's obligation under the contract was stated in the school's bulletin in a definitive manner and by accepting the application fee, a valuable consideration, the school bound itself to fulfill its promises. Plaintiff applicant accepted the defendant school's promises in good faith and he was entitled to have his application judged according to the defendant school's stated criteria. In evaluating the proposed class action, the court held that the legal issue would have been the same as to each member of the class, and the factual issue was identical. The plaintiff was a proper representative of the class and his suit was a proper vehicle to resolve the common factual and legal issues involved even though the members of the class suffered damage in separate transactions.