Richard Ciano, a well known politico (and a decent guy) tried to sue York over the last strike. His claim was dismissed and some suggest that means York cannot be sued this time.
That's not likely the case -- Ciano's case failed solely because he did not prove damages. (Now if the case went to trial other defences might apply -- there is a waiver of liability for strikes in the York calendar). Any new claim brought for this strike would, presumably, have specific proof of damages -- not hard to show - would imagine. In effect Ciano's case failed on a technicality -- an important one yes but not one that need block future cases.
York's strongest argument was that the relationship between students and York is not contractual but something else. Ciano's case made it clear that's not right. The court wrote:
"The defendant submits that the primary nature of the relationship between student and university is educational in nature, rather than contractual. I disagree. The relationship between student and university is contractual."
James Morton
1 comment:
That sounds about right to me. Offers of enrollment are sent in writing and formally accepted. Payments are made in considersation of services recieved and access allowed. The only question remaining is whether both parties intended for the agreement to be legally enforceable.
To decide the final question, it would be interesting to see what has happened to students in the past at other universities who have not paid tuition, or have otherwise been in breach of their agreement with their university.
At the postgraduate level it becomes more obvious that the relationship is contractual because written agreements describe ownership of itellectual property. Surely those clauses designed to protect the research of the university are meant to be enforceable in court.
Good post.
Post a Comment