[brief] Appellant/Cross-Respondent, [...] ("Appellant" or "Plaintiff"), appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee/Cross-Appellant [...] ("[...]" or "Defendant"), as Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, and Fraudulent Inducement causes of action were improperly dismissed.  This matter arose from [...]’s deceitful advertisement of its “dual degree” program offered through its new, not yet fully accredited Pharmacy School.  Prior to opening its doors to its inaugural class in the Fall of 2012, [...] falsely advertised its dual degree program to prospective students, misrepresented the program requirements and enrollment period, and induced Plaintiff to apply for, enroll in, and pay seating deposits and tuition to [...]’s Pharmacy School.  The dual degree program that [...] advertised to prospective students offered degrees in both the Pharmacy and master’s program (the “dual degree program”), wherein a student was able to simultaneously pursue a Doctorate in Pharmacy (“Pharm.D”) combined with a choice of one of many master’s tracks.  Upon completion, the student would graduate with both a doctoral degree and a master’s degree.  [...] was the only university in New Jersey to offer such a program and utilized the program within its advertisements to entice students to join its inaugural class as opposed to [...]’s only in-state competition, [...], or out of state alternatives.  The record clearly demonstrates [...] misrepresented the requirements of the dual degree program, including its requirements and selection/opt-in period, and fraudulently induced Plaintiff into enrolling into the [...] School of Pharmacy’s inaugural class.  Specifically, prior to the opening of the school, the [...] School of Pharmacy’s website, advertisement did not include any additional conditions or restrictions for opting into the dual degree program, nor did it explicitly provide that Plaintiff was only able to select or opt-out of the master’s pathway at the end of the students’ first professional year.  However, after the inaugural class, which included Plaintiff, commenced classes in the Fall of 2012, [...] silently altered the requirements for entry into the dual degree program by adding a 3.0 GPA requirement without notifying its students of the material change.  [...] subsequently misrepresented that Plaintiff would be able to matriculate to the MBA program after the first year, so he did not transfer and/or find seek out additional opportunities, then created and implemented a policy preventing Plaintiff from pursuing the masters track of the dual degree program after his first year.  Plaintiff then spoke with [...] employee, [...] (“[...]”), who advised him that he would be able to matriculate to the MBA program even after the first year, so that he would finish the dual degree program by 2016.  However, at the end of Plaintiff’s first year in the program, he was advised he was not able to enroll in course work for the Master of Business Administration master’s track program at that time, because he did not meet the newly added minimum 3.0 GPA required for entry in the dual degree program.  On August 1, 2013, [...], University Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, [...], Interim Dean of the College of Business, and [...], [...] School of Pharmacy Dean, participated in an email correspondence wherein they created and implemented a policy, on the fly, preventing Plaintiff from self-applying to the dual degree program after his first year.