## Facts

- Jonathan M. Abrams enrolled as a student at a private, not-for-profit podiatric medical college.
- In his first semester, Abrams failed Physiology 101 and then failed a permitted re-examination under the school’s handbook procedures.
- The school’s Academic Review Committee allowed him to remain enrolled but required him to repeat Physiology 101 and removed a more advanced physiology course from his schedule pending conditions.
- In the next semester, Abrams failed two additional courses and the college dismissed him for poor academic performance.
- Abrams claimed the student handbook promised that faculty would keep students informed of academic progress (including after midterms) and provide suggestions for improvement, and that these statements formed an implied contract.
- Abrams also alleged the college failed to give due consideration and accommodation for his asserted learning disability.
- He sued for breach of contract seeking equitable relief, including expungement of dismissal records and reinstatement.

## Issues

1. Whether generalized statements in a student handbook about informing students of academic progress and offering improvement advice constitute definite contractual offers enforceable against the school.
2. Whether the complaint alleged a breach of any sufficiently definite contractual promise so as to state a claim and defeat judgment on the pleadings.
3. To what extent courts may review and override a private college’s academic dismissal decision when framed as a contract claim.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed judgment on the pleadings for the college.
- The handbook language and related assurances were treated as general policy statements, not definite contractual offers.
- Even accepting Abrams’s factual allegations as true, the complaint did not identify a specific contractual duty that the college breached.
- The learning-disability allegation failed as a contract claim because no definite contractual promise requiring particular accommodations was pleaded.
- Because no enforceable contractual term was alleged, there was no material factual dispute requiring trial, and judgment on the pleadings was proper.

## Legal Principles

- A binding contract is not formed by vague or aspirational statements that an action “will or should” be taken.
- The student–private college relationship may have contractual aspects, but only clearly defined, specific promises are enforceable as contract terms.
- Courts generally defer to academic judgments and will not second-guess academic dismissals absent arbitrariness, bad faith, or violation of an explicit legal or contractual duty.
- Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when, taking all well-pleaded facts as true, the complaint still fails to state a legally cognizable claim.

## Conclusion

The court held that broad handbook assurances about monitoring and advising students, and non-specific requests for disability consideration, were too indefinite to create enforceable contractual obligations, so the student’s breach-of-contract challenge to his academic dismissal failed and judgment on the pleadings was affirmed.


Abrams v. Illinois Coll. of Podiatric Med., 395 N.E.2d 1061 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1979)