Student-college contracts have been extensively researched, interpreted, and adjudicated over the years. With the advent of the Early Decision application, this Article examines the contracting process and reaches the conclusion that the Early Decision application is not, in fact, legally binding because no enforceable contract has been formed by the application alone. However, colleges have little incentive to share their true interpretation of the term “binding” as applied to the Early Decision application. Barring judicial review of the enforceability of the Early Decision application as a legal agreement, prospective students will continue to base their college application choices on an erroneous belief that “binding” really means binding.
Continue reading “When Binding Doesn’t Really Mean Binding: The Early Decision College Application”Tag: Contract Law
Not Pictured: Minnesota’s Disfavor Toward Forfeitures–Capistrant v. Lifetouch Nat’l Sch. Studios, Inc., 916 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. 2018)
In Capistrant v. Lifetouch National School Studios, Inc., the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted section 229 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (“Restatement Section 229”) to resolve an employment contract conflict that was contrary to Minnesota’s reluctance to enforce forfeitures. In its niche opinion, the majority credits Minnesota’s disfavor of forfeitures but refuses to resolve the contractual dispute as a matter of law. While the Capistrant matter remains unresolved on remand, the court’s decision to integrate Restatement Section 229 creates a precedentially consistent avenue for employees to recover relief from former corporate employers.
Continue reading “Not Pictured: Minnesota’s Disfavor Toward Forfeitures–Capistrant v. Lifetouch Nat’l Sch. Studios, Inc., 916 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. 2018)”