THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

H&mrableJ.B.Parten 

Ime Board of Regents of the 

mllven3lt.y of Texas 

P. 0. Box 1403 

Houston, Texas 

Deer sir: opinion NO; 0-2106 

Be: (a) Uhether or not a oontractual relation exists between 

the Onlveralty of Texas aud 

* etudent. 

(b) If contractual reldtlomhlp 

exiata, oan the partlea alter 

maid oontraot? 

We have forreply m letter ofMrrroh 20,1940,dealrlng to. 

kuow whether or not b. ce&raotnalrelatlonahlp exists between a etudent 

+nd theVnireraltyof%xm under the f&tie eetforth tim letter. In 

order thattheee faotamayappear in this opinlonas youhave stated t&m, 

we quote Avlmyour letter; '. 

"TheBoard of Regenta hae tmder ocnslderatlcm enappeal 

by a fonuer student fran the aotlon of the.adminYatratlve 

officials in denyinghtiadmadmisslan to the Collage ofArta and 

Solewes at the Undverelty of Texas lnSeptembeF, 1939. 

*TheWlvemlty ofTexas publiahea and dlatrlbntas 

catalogue6 or bulletins. Cataloguea are made available to 

studenta aud to prospective atudenta as wellae the parents 

Of said atadentX~. 

"Acaordwly aoatalogue orbulletlnwas publlkhed 

aud dletrltited entltled 'The Unlverslty of Texas Bulletin, Ho. 3717 -- MsJr 1, 1937. catalogue Ho. Part VII 

College of Arta and Sciences aud School of Eduoatlon.* 

The pravislona ofealdcatalogzze oover the eaholaatio 

yeara 1938-1939 and 1937-1938, respeatlvely. The provlelcna of said oatalogaes in respect to the queetlans here 

Involved far each of said aoholastlo years are the sane. 

"Op the Inside topoover appeara aoapltallmdheadlngwhiohreads: *OEBERALPnaPaSEaFmCm.' 

Under t&is headingthe followingparagrapb appear81 The ' 

Catalogue contains t3.w offiaialregulatlolrs for the next 
Honorable J. R. Parten,Page 2 (o-2106) 

two ye-. Rxaept as to degree reqnlremente, these regalatlone - not valid bemd that t&w.' 

?Mer aoapltallzedheadlngseveralpagea later, GRADUATION UNDER A %UITICUUR CATAXGIlE, appears: 'A Student 

reglsterfngelthezfor’the flrettlme or in a later year ln 

the College of Arts aiulSolenoeemayobtalu a degree in the 

College'of Arte end Solenoes according to the requirermente 

of the aatalogue then ln force. . . .,Allof the above 

proylslon~, however, are subject to the reetrlctlon that 

allthe requirements for adegree ln thecollege of Arts and 

Solenoes must be camplated within six yeare of the date of 

the catabgue chosen: (p. 28) 

"Under the capitalized headlng~'STARDARD OF WORKREQXEVRED' (p. 23) is the aub-aapltalleed heading %EQKDED 

ltlmpm. ' *To avoid special observation, fiaal trial, or 

beingdropped Ann the rolls of theIJnl~erslty,the student 

mu&meet the followins etandardpf work.' . . . . (p. 24) 

"The pro~lelona of the catalogues in regard to the 

?(equired Minimam of Work' appearing at pages 23 and 25 

here under consideration. The Pro~lslo~ of s&id aatalogue 

irregard to the gequlremente for ti~Degree' ~appearlng at 

pages 27 td 29~ lnalual~e,~have not~been ahanged and'- 

atill construed to be applloable to the student. 

"The~student in queatlcm entered the College of Art~ 

&d Sciences at Tile University of Texas lu September, 1937, 

uuder the terms and oonditione of the above oatalogue or 

bulletin for the soholaetlc years 1937-38 and 1938-39. 

"Dura the session of 1937-1938 the student met the 

scholastla tiqulremente aontalned in said oatalogne or 

bulletin, and there la no issue or question ia regard to 

hieEholaatla quallflcatlons for this sesalon. 

"On June 25, 1938, after the publlaation and dletrlbutlon of the aforeeaid catalogue or bulletin, the Board 

of Regenta of the'Vniverslty of Texas, acting upon the 

reaamuendatlona of the Faculty, aoneldered and edopted 

new regulationa or minimum of scholastic requirements 

for students ln the~Coll.ege of Arts and Solenoee at the 

Unlveralty of~Texaa. The new standard of work was entitled 'Required Minimum of Work,' the pertinent part 

of which requlrementreads ae follows: 

"To avoid Soholaatlc Probation or being dropped 

fKlm the rolls of the Unlverelty, tbe studentmuetmeet 

the followingstandard ofworkdtthe end of eaoh semester 

of the Long Session.' . . . 
Honorable J. R. Parten, Page 3 (0-2106) 

"Thenewrequ~ta k-e dW&entthan thoee oontalned 

in the aataloSue for 'Required Mlnhum of Work' and do not 

appearthereln. 

between A-t I.5 and September 1, 1938, the Beglathr 

of the Unlverelty of Texas malleid prlntid ooplea of the no 

eoholsatlo requfreammts to eaoh etudentsnd pmepeotlve studentwhoeenme andaddmee was Imown oravailable to tie 

Regletrar fran the records of the Unlverelty, but it 16 not 

known whether or not the partloular etudentreoelved euoh a 

notice. 

"The student lu queatlon then returned to the Unlrerelty 

of Texas ind duly regletered and was admltted.to the College 

of Arts md'soienoea ln September, 1938, for the 1938-1939 

aesalon. During the falleemesterthe etudentmade and exoeeded the minlmuri requlremente for eaholaetlc work ae set 

out in the catalogae, but failed to meet the new echolaatlo 

requete for sa3.d eemeeter and was placed on soholaetlo 

probation ln February, 1939. Uhen the atudent failed to meet 

thesenew soholsetlc requirements andwae plaoedonprobatlon, 

the Dean of the College of Arte end Solenoee on February 14, 

1939, prepared end mailed the parent of the etpdent in question a notloe of said scholaetlc probation. There appeere 

upon the faoe of eald notice the following etatamentl 'See 

over forrulee relating to the requlredminimrrmofwork.' 

There iiprinted on the back of said notice a full statement 

of the n&#ze@ulremente formlnimpn of work in the College 

of Arte and Soi&eee at the University of Texas. At the 

bottamof the ealdnotloe and belaw a perforated line 16 a 

receipt fozin iarked QlPOElWT' with the statement 'To be 

sl~edendreturnedtoDe8nPerlinby tbepsrentorgoardlen' 

of the etudent. 

"Thla receipt reads a* followe: 'I have received Emd 

read the attachedI?OTICE OF SCHOIASTIC PRORATION, and I 

under&and end accept the terms thereof.! A receipt of 

notloe of scholastic probation wee received by the Dean of 

the College d.Arta and Salenoes bearing the name of the 

father of said student ln question written in ink. This 

signed receipt foni Is now in the files of the Dean of the 

College of Arte and Soiencea. A copy of the form of said 

notice is hereto attached for your information. 

"The student duly regietered in the College of Arte 

and Sciences for theeprlug semester of 1939. For said semester 

the student met the scholaetlo requirements as publlehed in 

the oatalogue, but again failed to meet the new requirements. 
Honorable J. R. Parten, Pege 4 (o-2106) 

"Under tbenew scholastio reSu$.ezaente ofminimmnof 

work ia the College of Arts and Salenoes and by reaeon of 

the student's probatlcm and failure, the student ME required 

to attend the Surmmer Session, and if he paeaed the required 

emount of work at eald aeseion, he would have been permitted 

to z-e-enter the College of Arta end Solenaes in September, 

1939, but lf he failed to pass each requirementa, he would 

nothavebeenpexmitted tohavereturnedaudregistered in 

maid College untilFebruary, 1940, requiring of him an abseme frau thecollege of one eemester. The studentrefueed 

to attend the Slmmrer Seasion, insisting that he had met the 

oatalogne scholaetio requirements end wee entitled to continue In aaid College without. the neoesaity of attending the 

Suurmer Session, end that the new scholastic requirements were 

not applicable to him. 

"The parents of the stndentcontend that the oatalogae 

is a contract and thattheBoard OfRegentewonldheveno 

authority to change the eoholaetic requbawnta existing at 

the time o f the q tudent's entrance irrto the College-of Arts 

and Sciences and apply them to eaid.student. But, on the 

otherhand, theBoe&ofRegenta contenda thatithae the 

power and authority to make proper and reasonable change6 in 

the~ruLee In regard to the minimmn of work required, either 

after proper notice to the student o~~wlth.the lmowledge and 

wnsent'of the etudent's pare&e or guardian. 

"It is oanceded that in this caee the new scholaetio 

regulations are different- those oontained in the aataloguti, and that the same were adopted by the Board of Regente 

in order to raise the atanderd of the acholaetiaworkr6- 

quired to continue in the.Univereit.v ofTexae. It IS further 

collceded that the new rulea are more oneroue in the requirement of proficiency of etndy. 

"The student in question did notbeccme twenty-one yeare 

of age u&ilDeoember 21, 1939. 

Will you pleaee advise me upon the following questions: 

"1. Whether or-not the catalogue in stating the aaholaetic requirements fbrastudentto ocxltinue in the Vnivaraity 

ofTex= and the entrance of the studentunder Its tezme constitutes a written contrsct between the Unlversi~ of Texae 

end patron? 

*2. If you auewer to the foregoing queetion in the 

.&f&native, then pleaee advise whether or not ae a matter 

of law under the facts of thie case tie partlea have 80 
Honorable R. J. Partsu, Pags 5 (o-2106) 

altered, modified, or mmuded the origins1 contra& as 

tomake thenew requlredmlndxrumofworkxulss applloable 

to the student as VBB done in this case." 

Statedmore simply,we have a studentvho duly registered ln 

theUnlverslty of Texas forths soholastla year lg37-~38pursuaut to, 

the tenas of the oatalogue of that lnstltutlan in foroe atthattdme 

wverfxig the years lgX'-1938 an& 1938-1939. hnw other thinga the oatal.ogue.contalned certalu standards of work required to be met by the student in order to avoid being placed tmder a spealalobsexvatlon,.apon 

finaltrlal,orbelng dropped frcmtherolls of theUniversity. 

The student met these rsqudrsments as contained in the oatalogue 

under whioh he entered the University, but during the 1938-1939 eoholastlo 

year he fallsd to meet certain new stander& of work required as adopted 

by the Board of Regents of the University of Texas ou June 25, 1938, 

which are>sore ouerous thau those referred in the oata&ogue under which 

said student entered the University of Texas ln 1937; The required standards of work as contained lu the oatalogne in force ln 1937, however, were 

atalltlsesmet. Because of his failure to meet the nsw'requlred staudards of Voxk during the 1938-1939 scholast;a year the student wa,ptiaed 

upon acholastlo probation, snd was instructed to attend Smmer School. He 

refused to atteudSmnerSchoo1, and the Uulvsrslty offlcials@'usedhim 

registration in September, 1939. 

Your first questlou ls whether or not a oontraotualrelatloushlp 

eilstebetseen the etndantand'tha~lveraityofT~,aad the general 

ruls in this oouutry ls that snoh.oontraotual rslatlonshlp doessxdst. As 

.statedbyProfessorWllllston lnhls treatise upm the Law ofCcut.ra&s, . 

"The ~eralAmerioan view ls that the relationbetween 

the student and a~prlvate lnstltutlan of learndug leoontractualsnd thata studsntenterlngsuohau lustltutiouhas con- 

&motive lamwledge of the tems ofadmlssloustated lu its 

catalogue or enpmeemsnt, especiallywhere the student si@ls 

a rsglstzatlon card referring to arid conditioning entrance 

upon egrstint to the terms so stated. 'The offer is made 

up ao&lsotively of the tams of the University aatalogue, 

bulletins issued, and notices printed cm registration cards. 

Allthe acts of registration aoustitute acasptmce.'" 

I WIU.EI~~~ 276. 

In accord with this proposition are the following cases: Booker 

Y. Grirnd Rapids 'MedlcalCoUsge, 156 Mlah. 95, 120 N. W. 589, 24 L.R.A. 

(N. S.) 447; Tate Y. North Pacific College (Sup. Ct. Oregon, 1914) 140 

Paa. 743, People Y. Belleme HospltalMsdlcalColl.ege, 14 N. Y. Supp. 4901 

aff., 28 8%. 253; Goldstein Y. New YorkUniversity, 78 1. Y. Supp. 739, 

Homer Schoolv. Wescott (Sup. Ct. N. C.) 124 1. 0. 518, 32 9. E. 885; 

14 Corpus Jurls Secuudum p.1358J Barker Y. Trustees of Bxyne Mawr COUefJJ, 

et al. (Sup. Ct. Pa.), 278 Pa. 121, 122 Atl. 220) Gott Y. Bsrea College, 

156 Ky. 376, 1.61s.~. 204, 51L.R.A. (NJ. S.) 17, 11 Corpus Jurls 984; 
. - 

Honorable R. J. Parten, Page 6 (o-2106) 

Stetson University I. Hunt, 88 Fla. 510, l@ So. 637; Baltlmore University 

Y. Colton, 98 M. 623, 57 Atl. 14. Inacoord inTexas are the followlug 

cases: Vldor Y. Peaacak (C.C.A. 1912) 145 S.W. 672;~Tei~~mMiutacy 

College Y. Taylor (C.C.A. 1925) 275 S.W. 1089; Pleroe Y. Pescook Military 

College (C.C.A. 1920) 220 S.W. 191; Peaoook Military College Y. Hughes 

(C.C.A. 1!320), 225 S.W. 221; Peaoook Military College Y. Soroggins (C.C.A. 

1920) 223 S.W. 232. England, pexhaps because of the traditional independence of her apiversltles, recognizes no such contractual relationship and 

oourts there affordnoredress to astudentarbltrarllydismissedorothsrwise disciplined. Green Y. Master and Fellows of St. Peters College, Cembridge, 3lL. J. llg; lhcmsen Y. University of London, 33 L. J. C. 625. 

See also~n University of Pennsylvania Law Review 694, 1Wllliston on Contraots, p. 276. 

Volnme 27 of Rullug Case Law at page 144, states the rule to 

asfo.lLXfs: 

"One who is admitted to a college and pays th e fees for the 

first year's instructionhas a oontractrlghttobeusrmittedto 

continue as a student untll.he, in regularcourse. attaine the 

diploma and degree whloh he seelm, end which the lnstitutian is 

authorized tb oonfer. and he oannot be arbitrarily dismissed at 

the cloee of a s-ear m~p<erely bayuse he is obnoxious to other students on account of his race. While admitted students are at 

.._ - -- 

be 

liberty to terminate allrelations at anytime, ltdoesnotrollow 

that'the college or unlwrslty has the same rl&t. In fact, when 

one is admitted to a college, there is sn lmplieduuderstanding 

thathe shallnotbe arbltrarllydismisssd therefraa. !Che required 

fees may be paid ennually, end may be no more thau fair fees for 

the advantages reoelved by the student during the year, end yet 

it Is clear that the fees for the first year are, in feat, paid 

aud received with the nndsrstanding that the work of the year 

will not be made fruitless, a graduation end a degree made impossible, by au arbitrary refusal to permit further attendance. 

fin thls~understsndlng thsre is no want of mutuality. There is 

no went of good ssd valuable oonslderatlon. A Law school oanuot 

dismiss astudent,orrefuse topsnnithlmtograduats,for irregularity in attendance, where Its CUB*, as understood at the time 

of his matrlaulation, was that all that was necessary for graduation 

was paymsnt of the required fees and completion of the work, to 

acc&plish which the student might take suoh time as was needed. 

An action for breach of contra& is not an adequate remedy for 

au& wrcmgfulexpulslon depriving the 0tadent of the opportunity 

of obtaining a diplana aad de-e to whlah, under his contract, 

he is entitled, and mandamus will lie to ccmpelhis reinstatement." 

(Undersaorlng ours). 

While there are fewrsportedoases dealingapeoifloallywltb state 

universities, we see no reesonwhg the rule sho&l be different. See Stats 

Y. Whits, 82 Ind. 278, 42 Am. Rep. 496, Anthony Y. Syracuse University, 
Honorable R. J. Parten, Page 7 (0-2106) 

223~U. Y. Sul?p. (26) 98, I.30 Wieo. 249, reversed in part'23lN.~Y. Supp. 

4351 Gleason Y. Unlverslty of bllnnesota(Sup. Ct. Mlun. E@), 108 Mlnn, 

359, I,.I~ B.W. 60; People Y. The Regents of the Unlversl~ of the State'of 

New York; 199 App. Div. 3; 192 B. Y. Supp. 108; Nledemeyer Y. OIUT&.O~~I 

of the Tlhiwrsity of ldlssourl, 61.~iae. App. 654; Jadmon, et.sLv. State 

ei relyhjom (Sup. Ct. Nab. l.898) 57 Heb. 183, TN. W. 6621 State & rel 

kgemoU Y. Clappi et al, 8lMont. 200, 263 Pac. 433; l3 Condl Law 

Quartert85; l2Vlrglnla LmtR ev 1 ew 645; 27RullngCaseImf 1h.b. 

Volume 14 of Corpus Suris Secundum, page ~61, states the rule as 

foXlows: 

"While the relation existingbeiwesn the college oruniversityaaa the 0tuatmt is ccntraotual, precln(liog an arbltrmry refusal 

to penult further attsndanoe, yet the power of 0uspenslOn or expulsion of students is an attribute of government of eduoaticnal 

instltutlone, and obviously and of necessity there ls implied in 

the contract a term or aonditian that the student will obey and conform to the.oollege rulea of government and will not be guilty 

of suah mlsoonduot as would'be subrarsive of the discipline of the 

oollege orunlverslty,oras wouldshowhimto beunfitmorally to 

bc oontlnued as a member thereof. It hes been stated that the rules 

o.feduoatlonal ~institutions suuuorted in whole or in part by auuroprlations fmm the public treasury are viewed sanewhat m&n% oritloallybythe courts than those of private Institutions." (Undsra 

acorn oura) , 

:. 

In otherwords, it seems the onlydistlnctionmade between private 

lnstita&lons end public instltutione is thatthe.rules of public instltutione ars vlewsd sawwhatmore orltioally by the aourls than those of prlrate lnstitutlona. This ieindeedtrueinT~,wheretbersasonablerales 

aud regulations pmmulgated.by the Board of Regents of the University of 

T- sre vlevedwlth the earns force and effect as legislative enaoimsnt. 

Foley Y. Benedict, lnfra. 

In Anthonfv. Syraouse UnlvBrsity, 231N. Y. Supp. 475, the court 

held thatSyracuseUniversitywas a quasi-public instltutlon~ andabranch 

of the educati~lsywtem of the State of New York. In disuussing the relationship betweep a studs& and that institution, the court saidr 

*UllderordinaryoLrclrmetaPcesaaaacrnditLoaaa~~on 

/ matrloulatingatauniversity establishes a contractualrelatlonshlp, under which upon aanplisnce with all reasonable 

regulations as to scholastic standing, attendance, deportment, 

payment of tuition, and otherwise, he is entitled to pursue 

his salsated course to completion and rsaelve the degree or 

certificate awarded for the successful ccnuplstion of suah 

degree." 
- . 

Honorable R. J. Parten,Page 8 (o-2106) 

Again, lnTate ~.NorthPaoiflo College (Supreme Court of Oregon, 

1914) 140 Pea. 743, the oourt saldr 

"The lssueaoe by a college of aoatalogue statingthe requirements for gradaation and for the conferring on candidates 

of the degree of Dootor of DentalMedicine, aud the entrsnoe, 

matrlaulation, end attendance of sessions by a student with 

knowledge of those requirements constitutes aaontractby the 

student to oomplywith the rsqulremsnts, andby the collegs to 

issue a dlplaeLa on ocmpllance with the requirements." 

InNeidenaeyer Y. Curators of the University of Missouri, supra, 

the catalogue of tie stateuniversity for the yssrs 18$?-23% contained the 

statement that applicants for admlsslon to the classes of the law departmentvere mqd.rea to pay $50.00 for the~first *ear and $40.00 for each 

sucoesslw year. The plaintiff in l8g2paid$5O.OOandwas admitted to the 

Junior alma. The oatalogue forthesoholasticyear18g3-1894statedthat 

all law studentswere required to pay$5O,OOper year. The plaintiff in 

I.893 tendered $40.00 for admission to the senior class, was rejected and 

paid the $5O.OOdemandedunderprotest. It was held that the catalogue of 

the stateuniversltyoonstltutedanofferand theplaintiffbyregistering 

accepted the offer. The aourt then stated: 

Yifter the-propo0ltlon contained in the oatalogue of l&2- 

1893hadbesnacceptedbyple.intlff,and the ri&ts of tie plaintlffhad thereby become fixed, itwas notwithin the power of 

the defendants to alter or abridge those rights by withdrawing the 

proposifionandpubllahingthatoantainadln the aatalogue of I.893 

and 1894. And whether the plaintiff had notice of that fact before he applied for admission to the seoond year.6 course or not, 

it se- to UB, oan make no dlfferenoe. The proposition oontained 

in the catalogue of 18p2-1893was that of the state,and,when 

accepted, gwd faith and fair deallug requirsd It should be carried 

out on the part of the state to the letter. Ansnlightenedend 

progressive state can ill afford to trifle with the ri&ts of the 

citizens in the slightest degree. The court erred inrejeotingthe 

theory oontained ln the plaintiff's instruotlou aud in adopting 

that oontaiued in those of the defendant's,' 

In Foley Y. Benedict, et al. (Corn. App. 1932) 122 Tex. 193, 55 

S.W. (2d)805, the courtwas 00~ernedwit.b thevalldityof aregulation 

idopted by the Board of Regents of ,the Unlversi~ of Texas requiring a 

certain standard of proficisncy in order for a student to stay in the 

mediaalbranoh of the University. Re-admissiou was refused the student 

afterhehad failed tomaintain audmeetthe standards required. The 

C~ission of Appeals quoted with approvalgertain passages from the 

opinion of State Y. White, 82 Ind. 278, 42 Am. Rep. 496, whloh reoognised 

that certain aontraotual rights exist between a student and a state 

Supported unlverslty, held the regulation of the Board of Regents ti be a 

reasonable one, and in the course of this opinion said2 
Honorable R. J. Parten,Page 9 (O-2&) 

"A student who ls admitted to the unlverelty reoelves 

the prl~llege of attendlng that lnstltutlon sub.l;of to the 

reasouable rutis andregulations mmmluatedbyi3.mBoard 

ofRegents..eud exlstlng at the time ofhls sntrame intO 

the sohool." (Undersooring oura) 

Consequently,wehold ln snswer td your flrst'questlon thtittid 

catalogues of We Univexxlty of Texw and bulletins issued, mailed to students and prospective studs&s of tiat institution, constitute sn offer to 

oontraatonthe part of the stats, through theBoard ofRegents,and that 

the acts ofreglstratlanoonstltute acceptance of suchan offerby the student. On the part of the Uni~erslty it ls agreed that lf the student will 

payhls reglstratlon,tmdallotherreqnlrsd fees enddeposlte, follow the 

courses prescribed in the oatfdogue, malntaln ordlnsry sB of aiwipllllen3qulrsd,audthes~ of proficiency in work set-out In the 

w&alogne tier which he enters the University, it will in due course of 

time award such student a dlplana or degree. On the other hand, the studentpranlses toabide by reasonable rules audregalatlons aonoerninghls 

dlsalpline, to follow the courses of study and the scholarship requlrmuents 

set forth in I916 cafalogne under.which he enters the Unlvsrslty, and to 

complete hie oourse within ths period prescribed. WehoUl that sucha cmtraotwas areated under the faots set forth in your letter. 

Eowevhr, were we to hold that a contractual relationship does not 

eilstbetweenthe Universltyendone of its etadents, webelleve thatunder 

the oase ofFoleyv.Bsnedlct, supra, the rssultwouldbe the seme. Inthe 

BePedlctcase, tbeCamlsslonofAppsals pointedoutthatreasonible mles 

and reglllntlinl0 prmrmleatea by the Board of Regents of tl&~lverslty of 

Texakhave the effect of Leglslatlve ma&mats. The oourtalsomade it 

clear thatupi admlsslona stadentreoelves the rlght of attending the 

instiintlun subJect to the reasonable rules and regulaticms prcmmlgatedby 

the Board of Regents and exlstlng at the time of his entrsme into the 

SChoOl. 

In other wm&, fraa whatever theory the rlghtmay spriug, oertati 

fixed orvestedrlghta aoorua to the studentuponhis entrsnce into the 

State University "tier a particular catalogue". We do not believe that 

these flxedorvested rights so acquiredby the studentoanbe changedor 

modified to hlcdetrlmsnt by the prmml@lm of retxoaotlve~~niles and regilathns by the Board of Regsnts of the Onlversity of Texas. Such would not 

be reasonable rules audreguXatlons within themsaulngof theBsnedlctoase, 

sugra. 

In aumer to your second question of whethe* Or not as a matter 

of law uuder the facta of the case the parties have'&l&ed, modified, or 

wended the orlginalaontra&as tonake ths nsw re~&&e&@Mmumofimrk 

rules applloable to the student in question, we must-:pii@','%hat the parties 

have not as a matter of law under the facts given ae:~,i&tered the oontmct 

first entsred into ln September, 1937, between the .stident~and the Unlversity of Texas. The only facts relating to this part of your question shuw 
Hanorable R.J. Parten, Page 10 (04106) 

that notice was given on February 14, 1939, to the parentofthe student 

in question advi@ng that the student had been plsaed upon scholastic 

probation and alsoadvlsingof thenews- of work required. 

There is no evidence under the faots set forth in your letter 

thatawntrsctww ever entered lntobetween the perents of the student 

and the University with regard to his education. We fall to see, therefore,hownotlce to the parents of thenew nilas endof the student being 

placedupcmscholastlc probation audacceptance by themofsaldnotlce~ 

could inanywlse alterormodify the aontreutentered lntobstweenthe 

~llnlw~lty of Texas and the student in September, 19X'. There ls no evldmce 

under the facts glvsn uf~ as to any waiver on the part of the student of his 

right to continue under the orlglnaloc&raot, of his own aooeptsnoe of the 

new rules as promulgated by the Boexd of Regents in 1938; or, even lf such 

an aoceptanoe could be shown, oonslderatlon for such en emended~~ocntraot. 

Under the circumstances, we must answer your second question in 

the nsgatlve. 

V-3 fm.4 yoara, 

By /s/Welter R. Emh 

Walter R. Koch 

Assietant 

By /a/ Jarmes D. SmulLeii 

James D. Smnllen 

JIX%*nldS 

APPHOVED APR 16, 1940 

/s/ Gerald c. MBnu 

ATlYXdEXm OFTEXAS 

APPROVED 

OPINION 

:rm, oHAmw