Author Question: A QUESTION OF ETHICS Jacobsen attended Columbia University from 1951 to 1954. During his years at ... (Read 63 times)

RRMR · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

A QUESTION OF ETHICS
Jacobsen attended Columbia University from 1951 to 1954. During his years at Columbia, Jacobsen was a difficult student and critical of his professors. He shifted his academic interests a number of timesfrom physics to social work to creative writing and other areas. In his last year, he attended classes only as he chose, and he rejected the university's regimen requiring examinations and term papers. Ultimately, he failed to graduate because of poor scholastic standing. When Columbia sued Jacobsen for 1,000 in tuition still owed by him, Jacobsen countered with the allegation that the university had failed to impart the wisdom promisedby its motto, its brochures, the inscriptions over its buildings, in its presidential addresses, and so on. Because Columbia had promised something it could not deliver, it was guilty of misrepresentation and deceit and should return to Jacobsen all the tuition he had paid7,016.

Question 2

A building subcontractor submitted a bid for construction of a portion of a high-rise office building. The bid contained material computational errors. The general contractor accepted the bid with knowledge of the errors. Which of the following statements best represents the subcontractor's liability?
a. Not liable, because the contractor knew of the errors.
b. Not liable, because the errors were a result of gross negligence.
c. Liable, because the errors were unilateral. Liable, because the errors were material (5/95, Law, 17, 5351).

snackralk · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. Whatever your answer is to this question, in the eyes of the court Jacobsen had no cause of action. The judges felt that Jacobsen simply chose to judge Columbia's education system by the shifting standards of his own fancy, and now seeks to place his failure at Columbia's door on the theory that it deliberately misrepresented that it taught wisdom. The court concluded that if the defendant's pleadings, affidavit and exhibits demonstrate anything, it was indeed the validity of what Pope said in his Moral Essays: A little learning is a dangerous thing.
2. A university has a contractual duty to its students to abide by the policies and procedures expressed in its published manuals, catalogs, and other releases. A student manifests assent to these policies and procedures upon entering the university and paying consideration (tuition) for the educational services offered by the institution. In the above case, Jacobsen sought to rescind his contract on the grounds that the university had misrepresented to him that it would impart wisdom. Jacobsen was not claiming that his contract with the uni-versity had been breached, but that it should not be enforceable because misrepresentation is a defense against contract enforceability. The court could not find that a reasonable person in Jacobsen's position would conclude that wisdom per se was capable of being imparted by any institution and that a reasonable person would ever rely on such a promise.
3. The equitable maxims that are probably most relevant to Jacobsen's case are the first and third maxims listed in Chapter 1: Whoever seeks equity must do equity and One seeking the aid of an equity court must come to the court with clean hands. Clearly, Jacobsen received benefits from the universityhe attended classes, was given at least the opportunity to benefit from the scholarship to which he was exposed by his instructors and the textbooks and library resources available, and was able to exercise and enjoy student privileges at the institution. In seeking to rescind his contract and regain all the tuition he had paid, in a sense Jacobsen wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. While he did not feel he should have to abide by the rules and requirements of the university, he was more than willing to take advantage of his rights under the rules and requirements of contract law. One could conclude that Jacobsen had not acted fairly toward the university and that self-gain, and not necessarily honesty or fairness, motivated him to undertake his lawsuit.

Answer to Question 2

.A