Steinberg V Chicago Medical School Summary
Steinberg v Chicago Medical School
Facts: In December 1973 Robert Steinberg, the plaintiff, applied for admissions to the Chicago Medical School. He paid an application fee of $15, but his application was rejected. After being rejected he filed against the school, claiming that they did not evaluate his application according to the academic entrance criteria printed in the school’s bulletin. Steinberg argues that the school based its decision primarily on nonacademic consideration such as family connections between the applicant and his family to donate large sums of money to the school. Steinberg assets that by evaluating his application to these unpublished criteria, the school breached the contract it had created when it accepted
his application fee. The trail court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and Steinberg appealed.
Issue: What is a contract?
Rules: Mutual Assent- the parties to a contract must by show of words or condut that they have agreed to enter a contract. The usual method of mutual assent is by offering and acceptance.
Consideration- each party to a contract must intentionally exchange a legal benefit or incur a legal deteriment as an inducement to the other party to make a renturn change. THIS FOR THAT basically.
Legality of subject matter- the purpose of a contract must be not criminal, tortuous, or otherwise against public policy
Capacity- the parties to a contract must have mental understanding of what they are entering into.
Application: The contract that Steinberg and Chicago Medical School entered into meets the four requirements for a contractual contract. Therefore it is binding and legally enforceable.
Conclusion: The court agreed with Steinberg’s position and that both parties did indeed enter a enforceable contract and under this contract by accepting the application fee the school must evaluate give him valuable consideration and his application evaluation was to be based on the criteria stated in the school’s bulletin. Steinberg accepted the school’s promises in good faith and he was
Facts: In December 1973 Robert Steinberg, the plaintiff, applied for admissions to the Chicago Medical School. He paid an application fee of $15, but his application was rejected. After being rejected he filed against the school, claiming that they did not evaluate his application according to the academic entrance criteria printed in the school’s bulletin. Steinberg argues that the school based its decision primarily on nonacademic consideration such as family connections between the applicant and his family to donate large sums of money to the school. Steinberg assets that by evaluating his application to these unpublished criteria, the school breached the contract it had created when it accepted
his application fee. The trail court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and Steinberg appealed.
Issue: What is a contract?
Rules: Mutual Assent- the parties to a contract must by show of words or condut that they have agreed to enter a contract. The usual method of mutual assent is by offering and acceptance.
Consideration- each party to a contract must intentionally exchange a legal benefit or incur a legal deteriment as an inducement to the other party to make a renturn change. THIS FOR THAT basically.
Legality of subject matter- the purpose of a contract must be not criminal, tortuous, or otherwise against public policy
Capacity- the parties to a contract must have mental understanding of what they are entering into.
Application: The contract that Steinberg and Chicago Medical School entered into meets the four requirements for a contractual contract. Therefore it is binding and legally enforceable.
Conclusion: The court agreed with Steinberg’s position and that both parties did indeed enter a enforceable contract and under this contract by accepting the application fee the school must evaluate give him valuable consideration and his application evaluation was to be based on the criteria stated in the school’s bulletin. Steinberg accepted the school’s promises in good faith and he was