This paper seeks to analyse issues pertaining to contractual relationships in the domain of education. It outlines the basic meaning of contractual relationships and how they apply in the scenarios delineated.
Its purpose is to identify whether or not there is the presence of contractual relationships in the scenarios outlined or to establish their deficiency. The paper also seeks to find out whether the various partisans were justified or had the authority to contract or enter into the agreement that they did enter with the student and the band manager. Contractual relationships
It is common for people to enter into contracts in their everyday lives. A contract is a legal cord involving two or more parties. The parties enter into it with the aim of creating or achieving a legal obligation. The contract becomes a legally binding agreement when all its elements are involved.
A contractual relationship is a legal relationship involving different entities that are the contracting parties. However, the contractual relationship can be terminated hence meaning that the relationship is not necessarily applicable. It might therefore be declared void.
In our context, we look at an academic contractual relationship between educational institutions and the parties they contract with (Kaplin & Lee, 2006). From the findings, we see that there are minimal legal restrictions in contracts involving academic institutions in cases of academic standards and qualification guidelines. Courts tend to be more deferential on such cases dealing with the evaluation of academic work and standards.
Their verdict is that it is the mandate of the institutions and their faculties to make such evaluations using their academic expertise and not the courts. Courts stipulate that faculties and institutions’ administrations must be able to document the basis for their judgement and that they must use and follow a set of rules and guidelines that govern academics which the student must be well informed beforehand and left to make his or her own decision pertaining the same.
In our case, we see that both deans gave an offer to the students on what they termed as the requirement of the student in order for him to qualify as a full time student. They also gave him a chance for acceptance and consideration of the offer. This therefore shows that there was the possibility of a contract between the student and either of the colleges but the student preferred the Liberty college offer since he went ahead to ask how he could make the contract happen. Admissions
In this section the research paper seeks to identify whether the two deans had the authority to contract. Section 8 of the law of higher education stipulates that in institutions of higher learning, the administration has the authority to regulate both academic matters and those that are not academic but which are within the institutions’ operations.
More to that, the administrator must prudently implement this authority through the set systems and pass sound judgement in dealing with the issues arising (Elmore & Fuhrman, 1995).
It is therefore stipulated by the courts for example in the case of Susan M versus New York law school (Elmore & Fuhrman, 1995), that using the courts to assess proprietorship of certain grades or when deciding qualifications for joining college or graduating, would promote litigation by numerous students who do not qualify or are unsuccessful in their pursuit for the academic needs like admission.
This would greatly undermine the authority of educational institutions and their expertise in evaluating them in setting up education systems. It would also undermine their credibility. The court arrived at the verdict that unless there is concrete evidence of legal violation, the student’s academic ability falls short of the scope of the jurisdiction of the courts.
In our context therefore, the two deans acted within their mandate and exercised their authority as part of the administration to give specifications to the students regarding qualifications and requirements in getting full-time education in either of the institutions. Students’ acceptance of the offer and attendance however depends on their own free will (Jewett & Rutherford, 2005).
The deans acted within the law of rights and responsibilities of students and of the entire academic community, in this case the administration. However there were no binding contracts in either of the institutions since it was upon the student to decide which college he preferred to join. There is also no evidence of consideration since there is no transaction or exchange of any kind of items of value e.g. money for school fees. Students’ activities
Due to the rising need for accountability in institutions of higher learning, accountability systems are vital in every institution (Kenneth, 2004). There are legal issues encompassing institutions and their responsibilities involving students’ activities especially those of outside fraternal organizations and sororities.
A legal framework should always be well entrenched in the running of academic institutions. This is because contractual agreements are legally binding and educational institutions should set the pace for sound and well founded legal practices. This organizations influence the social life of the colleges and their normal activities. They may also bring about some legal problems for instance when school parties become violent and students get injured hence posing legal problems on the college and the administration.
Every institution has the authority to control and regulate the influence or presence of such entities. However it has proved to be a huge task and especially where colleges want to completely restrict the presence of such entities and their activities in the institutions. The administration faces great opposition from the students and the courts in its effort to restrict such groups from social events.
This applies in both private and public institutions although private institutions are not subject to constitutional requirement. However their attempts to regulate the activities of these fraternities face equal challenges. It was therefore within their rights for the deans to agree to the band managers offer. They considered it and judged it as appropriate for them to hold the event in the time that they deemed appropriate and that would not interfere with the school’s normal programme. Conclusion
We understand that there are various mechanisms and devices that the administration can use in setting up systems, rules, and regulations that govern their institutions.
This include; The bill of rights, the code of academic ethics or honour codes, rights and responsibilities for students and those of the entire academic community, use of a formal judicial systems, and use of legislative bodies such as a university or student senate. It is the mandate of the educational administrations to know their responsibilities and their boundaries in governing their systems.
References
Elmore, R., & Fuhrman, S. (1995). Opportunity-to-learn standards and the state role in education. Teachers college record. USA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Jewett, C. G., & Rutherford, H. (2005).What to do when the US department of education, Office for civil rights comes to campus. Washington, D.C., USA: NACUA Publication.
Kenneth, S. (2004). Holding accountability accountable, Amsterdam Avenue. New York, USA: Teachers College Press.
Kaplin, W., & Lee, B. (2006).The law of higher education, student version. 4th ed. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.