Columbia University brought suit against Jacobsen on two notes signed by him and his parents
| ♥ 0 |
Columbia University brought suit against Jacobsen on two notes signed by him and his parents. The notes represented the balance of tuition he owed the University. Jacobsen counterclaimed for money damages due to Columbia’s deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation. Jacobsen argues that Columbia fraudulently misrepresented that it would teach wisdom, truth, character, enlightenment, and similar virtues and qualities. He specifically cites as support the Columbia motto: “in lumine tuo videbimus lumen” (“In your light we shall see light”); the inscription over the college chapel: “Wisdom dwelleth in the heart of him that hath understanding”; and various excerpts from its brochures, catalogues, and a convocation address made by the University’s president. Jacobsen, a senior who was not graduated because of poor scholastic standing, claims that the University’s failure to meet its promises made through these quotations constituted fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit. Decision? |
Explanation
The university has not committed any cheating or fraud and has not misrepresented any material fact in this case because:
The journals and brochures contain the goals and virtues of the university, which form the basis for the actions that are required to be taken. The materiality of the case cannot be proven to provide damages against the claims of Individual J.
The information provided in the university-related documents is non-factual and not authentic. It does not include any promise or commitment toward Individual J. So, relying on that information is not justified.
Verified Answer
The case does not include misrepresentation and fraud because:
The general belief and philosophical values of the university are expressed, which are not material facts and cannot be considered as evidence.
Individual J took admission in the university after relying on the statements made in the brochures and journals and relying on the non-factual information in such documents is not justified.
