Breach of contract claims related to payment of college tuition/fees & room/board; Use of remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic; Allen v Michigan State Univ; Express contract; Implied-in-fact contract; Unjust enrichment claims; Effect of the existence of an express contract; Zwiker v Lake Superior State Univ

The court concluded there was no evidence of an express contract containing a promise by defendant-NMU “to exclusively provide in-person instruction or any specific types of services under all circumstances.” Plaintiff-Simmons’s implied-in-fact contract claim also failed given NMU’s “express written indication that courses were subject to change[.]” Likewise, NMU was properly granted summary disposition of her breach of contract claim related to room and board based on the clear and unambiguous language of the parties’ express written contract. The existence of that contract supported summary disposition of her unjust enrichment claim as to room and board. And she failed to show “that NMU’s retention of tuition and fees was unjust.” Plaintiff sought “partial refunds for tuition, fees, and room-and-board payments. She argued that NMU’s responses to the COVID-19 pandemic deprived her of the full educational experience and benefits she had paid for.” The court noted the “central question in this appeal revolves around the existence of either express or implied contracts that would clarify whether tuition payments were intended to cover only in-person instruction. Additionally, there is a question of whether the associated fees were designated to provide access to particular services available on campus.” As to her express contract claim, plaintiff failed to direct the court “to any evidence in the record showing that NMU ever made an express promise to provide exclusively in-person instruction under all circumstances or any types or forms of services on campus.” As to her implied-in-fact claim, the court found that even “assuming there is a general implied right to receive education and services in exchange for tuition and fees . . . there is no legal authority supporting the contention that such an implied right extends to the precise manner of instructional delivery or type of service[.]” As to her room and board claim, the housing contract contained “a provision stating that NMU ‘is not liable for failure to perform an obligation under this Agreement in the event that such failure is caused by or due to acts or regulations of public authorities . . . epidemic . . . or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of [NMU].’” The court also found that the trial court properly granted NMU summary disposition of her unjust enrichment claims. Affirmed.