The court noted that the Plaintiff did not claim that the education was inadequate, but that an in-person college experience was essential to the enrollment bargain.
The court also allowed the Plaintiff to plead unjust enrichment claims at this initial stage of the litigation even though Pennsylvania precludes unjust enrichment claims between parties whose relationship is governed by either an express or implied contract. The court noted that, under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a Plaintiff is entitled to plead in the alternative.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.