Business Law 13th Edition by Frank Cross, Kenneth Clarkson, Roger LeRoy Miller

Exercise 16

IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT
crone, Judge.
* * * * * * * In the spring of 2010, [Peter] Amaya, an Ohio resident, was a third-year medical student at Indiana University School of Medicine [IUSM] located in Indianapolis. He was attending medical school on scholarship. On March 29, 2010, Amaya sat for a combined mini-block examination consisting of Introduction to Clinical Medicine II, Pharmacology, and Pathology. Three professors, Drs. [Joseph] DiMicco, [Klaus] Hilgarth, and [Kathleen] Prag, each observed Amaya during the examination and concluded that he was cheating by looking at the paper of the student to his right. On March 30, 2010, Dr. DiMicco confronted Amaya with his observations, and Amaya denied cheating on the mini-block examination. On April 5, 2010, Dr. Hilgarth confronted Amaya with his observations and explained to Amaya that his behavior of looking into the workspace of the student to his right gave the appearance of cheating. Amaya denied that he cheated or that he engaged in any behavior that gave the appearance of cheating. Amaya maintained that he was merely looking over and up at the clock on the right-hand wall of the testing room.
* * * * * * * On August 18, 2010, Dean [Craig] Brater advised Amaya that he * * * was dismissed from Indiana University School of Medicine.
* * * Amaya filed a * * * complaint [in an Indiana state court against the dean and IUSM, alleging] breach of contract and * * * breach of good faith and fair dealing. * * * The trial court * * * granted IUSM's motion for summary judgment. * * * Amaya now appeals. * * * * * * * Amaya raises two separate theories of liability against IUSM: (1) breach of contract, and (2) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. * * * A separate cause of action for alleged breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing is inapposite [unsuitable] here. The duty of good faith and fair dealing is a concept created by the Uniform Commercial Code and restricted to contracts for the sale of goods * * *. Accordingly, the sole issue for our determination on appeal is whether the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment on Amaya's claim for breach of contract. [Emphasis added.]
* * * The legal relationship between a student and a university [is] one of implied contract.
* * * The courts' approach has been similar to that used with contracts conditioned upon the satisfaction of one party. The university requires that the student's academic performance be satisfactory to the university in its honest judgment.
* * * * IUSM's Student Handbook provides that the [Student Promotions Committee (SPC)] is appointed by the dean to monitor student academic and professional standards as determined by the faculty. Section V(F), entitled "Dismissal," provides that "a student may be required to meet with the SPC to show cause why he/she should not be dismissed from school when he/she * * * has been cited for lack of acceptable academic ethics or professional behavior." The designated evidence indicates that three faculty members observed Amaya cheating during the mini-block examination. Amaya was informed of these observations and was requested to prepare for a
* * * hearing before the SPC. Amaya appeared before the SPC and presented a PowerPoint presentation. He also tendered voluminous written material, including photographs, field studies, experts' reports, timelines, and statistical analysis. Following Amaya's presentation, the SPC tabled its vote in order to further deliberate and thoroughly review Amaya's information. The SPC also asked for written submissions from the three faculty members and from Amaya.
Thereafter, Amaya was informed that a subcommittee of the SPC had conducted field tests to determine the validity of the information he had submitted. Considering the results of those field tests as well as the written responses to additional questions, the SPC determined that the evidence supported the charge of cheating. Amaya was granted his request for a reconsideration hearing as provided by section VI of the Student Handbook. When the SPC declined to reverse its decision, Amaya was then afforded the opportunity to meet with the dean for further review as provided for in the Student Handbook. After considering all the evidence presented, the Dean determined that dismissal was warranted.
* * * IUSM's conclusion that Amaya failed to maintain acceptable professional standards was a rational determination arrived at after much deliberation and after Amaya had numerous opportunities to be heard.
* * * * * * * We affirm the trial court's entry of summary judgment.
Legal Reasoning Questions
1. What is the duty of good faith and fair dealing (see page 381)?
2. To what type of contracts does the duty apply?
3. What type of contract was at the center of this case?
4. Did the court conclude that the duty of good faith and fair dealing applied in this case? Why or why not?