Claire Hickey v. University of Pittsburgh

Summary

The Third Circuit held that Financial Responsibility Agreements signed by students at the University of Pittsburgh and Temple University function as promissory notes covering only students' payment obligations, not as integrated contracts that preclude implied contract or unjust enrichment claims for tuition and fee refunds related to the COVID-19 transition to remote learning. The court reversed dismissal of breach of implied contract claims for tuition and certain mandatory fees, finding that university publications, historical practice of in-person instruction, and separate pricing for online programs plausibly supported an implied promise of in-person education. The court also reversed dismissal of unjust enrichment claims pleaded in the alternative and affirmed dismissal of Pitt's housing and dining fee claims for lack of standing by any named plaintiff.

Holdings

1. The FRAs function as promissory notes that detail only the Students' obligations to pay tuition and do not set forth the Universities' corresponding obligations, so they do not preclude implied contract or unjust enrichment claims.
2. At the pleading stage, the Complaints' allegations of university publications touting on-campus experience, tradition of in-person instruction, and separate pricing for online programs support a reasonable inference that the parties impliedly contracted for in-person education.
3. The Students have adequately alleged it was unjust for the Universities to retain full tuition and fees after transitioning to remote learning, as they retained cost savings at Students' expense.
4. The Students' alleged damages—difference in value between in-person and online education and lost services—are not speculative as a matter of law; the fact of damages is sufficiently alleged.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the FRAs preclude the Students' implied contract and unjust enrichment claims
2. Whether the Students plausibly alleged breach of an implied contract for in-person education
3. Whether the Students adequately pleaded unjust enrichment
4. Whether damages are cognizable

Disposition

affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded