## Facts

- Students at four Rhode Island universities paid tuition and mandatory fees for the Spring 2020 semester, including charges tied to housing, dining, activities, health services, and other campus services.
- In March 2020, due to COVID-19, the universities moved from in-person instruction to remote instruction, restricted or closed many campus facilities, and generally required students to leave campus housing.
- URI provided a partial refund of certain housing and meal plan charges but did not refund tuition or most mandatory fees; similar refund disputes arose at the other universities.
- Plaintiffs alleged university publications (handbooks, catalogs, marketing materials, and websites) promised an in-person, on-campus educational experience and access to fee-funded services.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims including breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, conversion (against some defendants), and “money had and received” (against JWU).
- Defendants argued they did not promise in-person instruction, reserved discretion to modify offerings and services, and provided academic instruction and credits despite the format change.
- The cases were consolidated for consideration of motions to dismiss; JWU also challenged a parent-plaintiff’s standing where the parent directly paid tuition.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged enforceable express or implied contractual rights to in-person instruction in exchange for tuition, making the shift to remote learning a breach.
2. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged contractual rights to specific fee-funded, on-campus services sufficient to support refund claims for mandatory fees.
3. Whether unjust enrichment, conversion, and “money had and received” were viable theories under Rhode Island law in light of the alleged contractual relationship and benefits provided.
4. Whether a parent who directly paid tuition and fees had standing to sue.

## Decision

- Motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied in part.
- Tuition-based breach of contract claims premised on a right to in-person instruction were dismissed for failure to plead an enforceable promise.
- Certain fee-based contract claims tied to identified services were allowed to proceed where plaintiffs plausibly alleged those services were materially curtailed without an appropriate refund.
- Unjust enrichment claims were dismissed as unavailable where the dispute was governed by contract principles.
- Conversion claims were dismissed because the alleged entitlement was a contractual debt/refund, not a possessory right to specific, identifiable funds.
- The “money had and received” claim was dismissed as an equitable restitution theory duplicative of contract-based claims.
- The parent-plaintiff who paid tuition plausibly alleged economic injury and had standing; JWU’s standing challenge was denied.

## Legal Principles

- General descriptions of campus life and educational experience in promotional materials ordinarily do not create enforceable contractual promises of in-person instruction.
- Disclaimers and reservation-of-rights language in university materials weigh against inferring a contractual guarantee of a fixed instructional format.
- Where a mandatory fee is connected to specific, described services or facilities, students may plausibly plead an implied contractual obligation to provide those services (or an appropriate refund if they are not provided).
- Under Rhode Island law, unjust enrichment and similar restitutionary theories generally do not lie when the parties’ relationship is governed by express or implied contract principles covering the same subject matter.
- Conversion does not extend to ordinary claims for repayment of money absent a possessory interest in specific, identifiable funds.
- A non-student who directly paid tuition and fees may establish standing by alleging personal economic injury from the challenged retention of payments.

## Conclusion

The court rejected attempts to treat pandemic-era remote instruction as a tuition-based breach absent a specific contractual promise of in-person teaching, but permitted limited contract claims to proceed where mandatory fees were tied to particular on-campus services that were allegedly not provided during the shutdown period.


Burt v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of R.I., 523 F. Supp. 3d 214 (D.R.I. 2021)