Breach of contract based on COVID-19 online alternatives instead of in-person college education & services; Tuition & fees; Express contract; Mutual assent; Implied-in-fact contract; Discovery; Room & board; Abandoned issue; Unjust enrichment; Motion to amend; Futility

The court held that the trial court’s decision to dismiss the breach of contract as to tuition and unjust enrichment claims was not erroneous. The case originated from defendant-WSU’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff-Paymon argued “that the trial court erred by concluding that there was no evidence of contracts for exclusively in-person instruction or particular types of student services, and dismissing her breach of contract claims on those grounds.” As to her express contract claim, “there was no evidence of any written or oral expression showing that WSU had ever made a promise to provide exclusively in-person instruction under all circumstances in exchange for tuition or any particular type of student services (on campus or otherwise) under all circumstances in exchange for fees.” Paymon did “not cite any language in any of the documents in the record evidencing such promises.” There was “no evidence that an express contract exists containing a promise by WSU that it would exclusively provide in-person instruction, or any specific types of services, under all circumstances.” Paymon did “not even appear to seriously claim that an express contract existed.” She had to “provide some evidence from which an inference of WSU’s offer to provide such specific types of instruction and services could be made.” The court held that without “evidence of an offer by WSU, there could be no mutual assent and thus no implied-in-fact contract.” It concluded that “Paymon failed to provide such evidence, and the trial court’s decision to dismiss the breach of contract claims related to tuition and fees was not erroneous.” Affirmed.