1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001

IF YOU DON'T LIKE CORRESPONDENCE SCHOOL, QUIT!

That's exactly what Elsie Roy did in Distance Learning Systems Indiana v. Roy .

Roy signed a contract with Distance Learning, agreeing to make payments for study materials as they arrived in conjunction with her college classes. She later refused to pay for the tutoring and study materials because she was dissatisfied with the products.

The District Court of Suffolk County granted Distance Learning's motion for summary judgment. The DC found that Roy failed to honor the terms of a valid contract and awarded Distance Learning $2,574.46 in damages.

On appeal, the Appellate Term, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts, held that Distance Learning was not entitled to recap the full contract price.

Under New York Personal Property Law § 412(a), in the event of a cancellation of a contract with a correspondence school, the institution's recovery may consist of no more than five percent of the cash price (but not to exceed fifty dollars) and a pro rata portion of the total price, representing the proportion of services used or completed.

Because Roy "only received and used study materials corresponding to one college course before indicating her wish to cancel the agreement," the award was reversed and remanded for recalculation.

Think everyone learned their lesson?

For a copy of the following Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Distance Learning Systems Indiana v. Roy

Categories: