Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a group of students filed suit against Clover Park Technical College (CPTC) for breach of contract and violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) following their enrollment in a real estate appraiser program. The students alleged that CPTC failed to provide promised work experience necessary for real estate certification, despite oral representations by an instructor. The trial court dismissed both claims, finding no mutual assent for a contract and noting the college's exemption from the CPA. On appeal, the appellate court upheld the trial court's dismissal. It emphasized the lack of a written contract and the instructor's lack of authority to bind the college. Additionally, the court maintained that CPTC, as a political subdivision, was exempt from the CPA based on precedent. The court further found that the students' claims of prejudicial error were without merit, affirming the trial court's decisions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Authority of Representatives in Contract Formationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Balkwill's statements did not create a binding contract as he lacked the authority to do so on behalf of CPTC.
Reasoning: The students could not prove that Balkwill had the authority to create a contract on behalf of CPTC, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's dismissal of the breach of contract claim.
Breach of Contract and Mutual Assentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that no binding contract existed between the students and CPTC as there was no mutual assent, and oral statements by a teacher do not constitute a contract.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim, determining that the students did not demonstrate mutual assent necessary to establish a binding contract with the college.
Consumer Protection Act Exemptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the dismissal of the CPA claim since the college is exempt from the provisions of the CPA as a political subdivision.
Reasoning: The CPA claim was dismissed because the college is exempt from the provisions of the CPA.
Exclusion of Municipal Corporations from the CPAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court cited Washington Natural Gas v. PUD No. 19, affirming that municipal corporations are exempt from the CPA, and CPTC qualifies as such.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court ruled in Washington Natural Gas that municipal corporations are exempt from the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), which applies only to 'natural persons, corporations, trusts, unincorporated associations and partnerships.'
Objective Theory of Contractssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court noted that the students failed to establish mutual assent based on the objective theory of contracts.
Reasoning: The burden of proof rested with the students, who needed to establish mutual assent based on the objective theory of contracts.