Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the Tennessee Court of Appeals confirmed the dismissal of a contract claim brought by a student against the University of Tennessee. The student alleged that the University's Undergraduate Catalog constituted a contract, which was breached when she was denied progression in her academic program. The central legal issue was whether the catalog and related academic documents formed a contract under Tenn. Code Ann. 9-8-307(a)(1)(L), which mandates a written contract signed by a state official for claims against the state. The court upheld the Claims Commission's decision, noting that the catalog explicitly stated that its provisions were subject to change and did not purport to be a contract. Furthermore, the student's reliance on the case Lesure v. State was found to be misplaced, as the facts were not analogous, particularly regarding the catalog's contractual language. Consequently, the court ruled that no contract existed between the parties, and the student's claim was dismissed, with costs assessed to her.
Legal Issues Addressed
Contract Formation under Tenn. Code Ann. 9-8-307(a)(1)(L)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The statute requires a written contract signed by a state official for a valid claim against the state, which was absent in this case.
Reasoning: The State successfully argued for summary judgment, asserting that Tenn. Code Ann. 9-8-307(a)(1)(L) necessitates a written contract signed by a state official, which was not present in this case.
Interpretation of University Catalogs as Contractssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the University of Tennessee's catalog did not constitute a contract as it explicitly stated its provisions were subject to change.
Reasoning: The court rejected Petty's argument that her transcript, which only reported grades and lacked definitive terms, along with the catalog, formed a contract. The catalog explicitly stated that its provisions were subject to change and should not be relied upon.
Precedent and Applicability of Prior Case Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the precedent set by Lesure v. State did not apply because the facts differed significantly, specifically regarding the contractual nature of the university catalog.
Reasoning: Although Petty cited a prior case, Lesure v. State, to support her claim, the court found it inapplicable because the University of Tennessee catalog did not explicitly state it constituted a contract, unlike the catalog in Lesure.