Breach of contract & unjust enrichment claims based on a university’s moving classes online during the COVID-19 pandemic; Express contract vs implied-in-fact contract; McInerney v Detroit Trust Co; Unjust enrichment; Morris Pumps v Centerline Piping, Inc

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendants-Ferris State University and its Board of Trustees (collectively, FSU) summary disposition of plaintiff-student’s breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. Plaintiff alleged she was deprived of the benefit of in-person instruction and student activities for which she had paid tuition and fees when defendants moved all classes online and cancelled on-campus activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the trial court erred by finding 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 these grounds. “There is simply no evidence that an express contract exists that contains a promise by FSU that it would exclusively provide in-person instruction under all circumstances.” And assuming “without deciding that there was an implied-in-fact contract generally agreeing to exchange tuition for educational instruction, the reservation of rights language” in FSU’s course catalog “makes clear that there was no offer—and thus no meeting of the minds—regarding any particular format for providing educational instruction. That conclusion is sufficient to resolve this issue on appeal.” Because there was no evidence of the contractual term plaintiff claimed “was breached regarding tuition and in-person instruction, FSU was entitled to summary disposition on” her contract claim as to tuition. And because she did not demonstrate “that further discovery ‘stands a fair chance of uncovering factual support for the opposing party’s position,’ summary disposition was not premature.” The court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that the trial court erred by dismissing her unjust enrichment claims as to tuition and fees. “Considering that the changes were necessitated by an unexpected global pandemic, that FSU still provided the essence of what it had intended to provide—educational instruction and various services for students—throughout the pandemic, that the fees continued to fund staff and maintenance expenses in accordance with the ordinary general purpose of the fees, and that there was no evidence of any agreement to provide education and services in any particular format, it is not inequitable or unjust for FSU to retain the tuition and fees it collected. FSU was entitled to summary disposition on these unjust enrichment claims.” Affirmed.