Gally v. Columbia University

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a university provision claiming that “all students should receive fair and equal treatment” was too general to form a contractual obligation
• explaining that a university’s statement of adherence to antidiscrimination laws did “not create a separate and independent contractual obligation.”
• explaining that New York courts have suggested that when “a student enrolls at a university, an implied contract arises”
• finding that “general promises about ethical standards” are not specific enough to sustain a valid breach of contract claim against a university
• noting that “the mere allegation of mistreatment without the identification of a specific breached promise or obligation does not state a claim on which relief can be granted”
• stating that although defendant-school “could disclaim the existence of a specific promise through the use of such a disclaimer, it could not unilaterally disclaim all contractual relations between the parties” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).