Rodi v Law school PC3 brief

Rodi v Law school PC3 brief - a non accredited school he...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Rodi v. Dean of Law School (PC3 p375-376) Issue Is the Dean liable for Fraud in the contract with Rodi? Rule Contract - 1)Offer 2)Acceptance 3)Consideration Fraud 1) Untrue assertion of fact (or equivalent) 2) Assertion made with knowledge of falsity (scienter) and intent to deceive 3) justifiable reliance and 4)economic loss (tort action for damages) Application Rodi argues that the Dean knew they were not going to be accredited because they strayed father away from accreditation standards but still told Rodi no cause for pessimism about the accreditation. The Dean knew of the falsity of the statement because he made it while straying away from the accreditation standards in order to stop Rodi from leaving the school after his first year. Rodi was going to leave the school after the first year because they were still not accredited but the Dean being the head of the law school told him there was no cause for pessimism about accreditation. Rodi required a law degree from an accredited school, because he graduated from
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: a non accredited school he was unable to enter New Jersey Bar. The Dean argues that the law school was working on the accreditation process but never mentioned the school is accredited or when the accreditation will take place, only informed Rodi not to be pessimistic about the processes. The Dean had no knowledge of any falsity as he simply stated Rodi there is no cause for pessimism about accreditation. Dean also argues that Rodi had no justifiable reliance because Rodi needed the accreditation and since the school did not have it after his first year, it was his choice to continue. Rodi has not proven an actual economic loss by not receiving a law degree from an accredited school, he simply may not sit for the New Jersey Bar. Conclusion No the Dean is not liable for Fraud against Rodi as all of the elements for Fraud were not met....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/28/2012 for the course BLAW 280 taught by Professor Ng during the Spring '11 term at CSU Northridge.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online