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 partleaalter maid oontraot?

We have forreply m letterofMrrroh 20,1940,dealrlng to. kuow whetheror not b. ce&raotnalrelatlonahlp existsbetweena etudent +nd theVnireraltyof%xm under the f&tie eetforth tim letter. In order thattheee faotamayappear in this opinlonas youhave stated t&m,
we quoteAvlmyour letter; '.

"TheBoard of Regenta hae tmder ocnslderatlcm enappeal by a fonuer studentfran the aotlon of the.adminYatratlve officialsin denyinghtiadmadmisslan to the CollageofArta 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 TexasBulletin, Ho. 3717 -- MsJr 1, 1937. catalogue Ho. Part VII Collegeof Arta and Sciencesaud 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 Insidetopoover appearaaoapltallmdheadlngwhiohreads: *OEBERALPnaPaSEaFmCm.' Under t&is headingthe followingparagrapb appear81 The ' Catalogue

containst3.w

offiaialregulatlolrs for the nextHonorable J. R. Parten,Page 2 (o-2106)

two ye-. Rxaept as to degreereqnlremente, theseregalatlone - not valid bemd that t&w.'

?Mer aoapltallzedheadlngseveralpagea later,GRADUATIONUNDER A %UITICUUR CATAXGIlE, appears: 'A Student reglsterfngelthezfor ’the flrettlme or in a lateryear ln the Collegeof Arts aiulSolenoeemayobtalu a degree in the College'of

Arte end Solenoesaccording 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)

"Underthe capitalized headlng~'STARDARD

OF WORKREQXEVRED' (p. 23) is the aub-aapltalleed heading %EQKDED ltlmpm. ' *To avoid specialobservation, 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

Minimamof Work' appearing at pages 23 and 25 here under consideration.The Pro~lslo~ of s&id aatalogue irregard to the gequlrementefor ti~Degree' ~appearlng

at pages 27 td 29~

lnalual~e,~have

not~beenahanged

and'- atill construed

to be applloable

to the student.

"The~student

in queatlcm

enteredthe Collegeof Art~ &d Sciencesat Tile University

of Texas lu September, 1937, uuder the termsand oonditione of the above oatalogue or bulletinfor the soholaetlc years 1937-38

and 1938-39.

"Dura the sessionof 1937-1938 the student met the scholastla

tiqulremente

aontalnedin said oatalogne or bulletin,

and there la no issue or questionia 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 studentsln the~Coll.ege of Arts and Solenoeeat 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 September1, 1938, the Beglathr of the Unlverelty

of Texas malleid

prlntidoopleaof the no eoholsatlo

requfreammts

to eaoh etudentsnd pmepeotlve studentwhoeenme andaddmee was Imown oravailable to tie Regletrar

fran the recordsof the Unlverelty, but it 16 not knownwhether or not the partloular etudentreoelved

euoh a notice.

"The studentlu 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 placedon soholaetlo probation

ln February,1939. Uhen the atudentfailed 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 etpdentin question a notloe of said scholaetlc probation. There appeere upon the faoe of eald notice the following etatamentl 'See
over forrulee relatingto the requlredminimrrmofwork.' There iiprinted on the back of said notice a full statement of the n&#ze@ulrementeformlnimpn 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 receiptfozin

iarked QlPOElWT' with the statement 'Tobe sl~edendreturnedtoDe8nPerlinby tbepsrentorgoardlen' of the etudent.

"Thlareceiptreads a* followe: 'Ihave received Emd read the attachedI?OTICE OF SCHOIASTIC

PRORATION,

and I under&and end accept the terms thereof.! A receiptof notloe of scholastic probation

wee received

by the Dean of the Colleged.Arta and Salenoes bearing the name of the fatherof said student ln question written in ink. This signedreceiptfoni Is now in the files of the Dean of the Collegeof Arte and Soiencea. A copy of the form of said notice is hereto attachedfor your information.

"The student

duly regietered

in the Collegeof Arte and Sciencesfor theeprlug semester

of 1939. For said semester the student

met the scholaetlo requirements

as publlehedin 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 Collegeof Arts and Salenoes and by reaeonof the student's

probatlcm

and failure,the student ME required to attend the Surmmer Session,and if he paeaed the required emountof work at eald aeseion, he would have been permitted to z-e-enter

the Collegeof Arta end Solenaesin September, 1939, but lf he failed to pass each requirementa, he would nothavebeenpexmitted tohavereturnedaudregistered in maid CollegeuntilFebruary, 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.

"Theparentsof the stndentcontendthat the oatalogae is a contract

and thattheBoard OfRegentewonldheveno authority

to change the eoholaetic requbawnta existing at the ti me

o ft he

q tudent's

entranceirrto

the College-of

Arts and Sciencesand apply them to eaid.student. But, on the otherhand, theBoe&ofRegenta contenda thatithae the power and authority to make properand reasonable change6 in the~ruLee

In regard to the minimmn of work required, either afterpropernotice to the studento~~wlth.the lmowledge

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

"It is oancededthat 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 continuein the.Univereit.v of Texae. It IS further collceded

that the new rulea are more onerouein the requirement of proficiency of etndy.

"The studentin question did notbeccme twenty-one yeare of age u&ilDeoember 21, 1939.

Will you pleaeeadviseme upon the following questions:

"1. Whether or-not the cataloguein statingthe 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 queetionin the .&f&native, then pleaee advisewhether or not ae a matter of law under the facts of thie case tie partlea have 80Honorable R. J. Partsu,Pags 5 (o-2106)

altered,

modified,

or mmuded the origins1 contra& as tomake thenew requlredmlndxrumofworkxulssapplloable to the studentas VBB done in this case."

Statedmore simply,we have a studentvho duly registered ln theUnlversltyof Texas forths soholastla year lg37-~38pursuaut to, the tenasof the oatalogue of that lnstltutlan in foroe atthattdme wverfxig

the years lgX'-1938 an& 1938-1939. hnw other thinga the oatal.ogue.contalned

certalustandards

of work requiredto be met by the student in order to avoid beingplaced tmder a spealalobsexvatlon,.apon finaltrlal,orbelng droppedfrcmtherolls of theUniversity.

The student

met these rsqudrsments as contained

in the oatalogue underwhioh he enteredthe 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

ouerousthau those referredin the oata&ogue underwhich said studententeredthe University of Texas ln 1937; The requiredstandards of work as containedlu the oatalognein force ln 1937,however, were atalltlsesmet. Because of his failureto meet the nsw'requlredstaudards of Voxk during the 1938-1939 scholast;a

year the student

wa,ptiaed upon acholastlo

probation,

snd was instructed to attendSmmer School.He refusedto atteudSmnerSchoo1, and the Uulvsrslty offlcials@'usedhim registration

in September,

1939. Your first questlouls whether or not a oontraotualrelatloushlp eilstebetseenthe 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 studentand a~prlvatelnstltutlan of learndug

leoontractualsnd thata studsntenterlngsuohau lustltutiouhas con- &motive lamwledge of the tems ofadmlssloustated lu its catalogue

or enpmeemsnt, especiallywhere the studentsi@ls
a rsglstzatlon

card referringto arid conditioning

entrance upon egrstint to the terms so stated. 'Theoffer is made up ao&lsotively

of the tams of the University aatalogue, bulletinsissued,

and noticesprintedcm registration cards. Allthe acts of registration aoustitute

acasptmce.'" I WIU.EI~~~

276.

In accordwith 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 PacificCollege (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 CorpusJurls Secuudum p.1358JBarker 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 CorpusJurls 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;PleroeY. PescookMilitary College (C.C.A. 1920) 220 S.W. 191; Peaoook Military

College

Y. Hughes (C.C.A.

1!320), 225 S.W. 221; PeaoookMilitary CollegeY. Soroggins (C.C.A. 1920) 223 S.W. 232. England, pexhaps

becauseof the traditionalindependence of her apiversltles, recognizes

no such contractual relationship

and oourts thereaffordnoredress to astudentarbltrarllydismissedorothsrwise disciplined.Green **Y.** Master and Fellowsof St. PetersCollege,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:

"Onewho is admitted to a collegeand pays th e fees for the firstyear's instructionhas a oontractrlghttobeusrmittedto continue

as a student

untll.he,in regularcourse. attainethe diploma

and degree

whloh he seelm, end which the lnstitutian is authorized

tb oonfer.

and he oannotbe arbitrarily dismissed

at the cloee of a s-ear

m~p<erely bayuse he is obnoxious to other students on accountof his race. While admittedstudents are at

.._ - -- be

libertyto terminate allrelations at anytime, ltdoesnotrollow that'the

collegeor 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 feesmay 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. finthls~understsndlng thsre is no want of mutuality. There is
no went of good ssd valuableoonslderatlon. A Law schooloanuot dismiss

astudent,orrefuse topsnnithlmtograduats,for irregularity in attendance, where Its CUB*, as understood at the time of his matrlaulation, was that all thatwas necessary for graduation
was paymsntof the requiredfees and completion of the work, to acc&plish which the student might take suoh time as was needed. An actionfor breach of contra& is not an adequate remedy for au& wrcmgfulexpulslon deprivingthe 0tadent of the opportunity of obtaining

a diplanaaad de-e to whlah, under his contract, he is entitled,

and mandamus

will lie to ccmpelhis reinstatement." (Undersaorlng

ours).

While thereare 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, reversedin part'23lN.~Y. Supp. 4351 GleasonY. Unlverslty of bllnnesota(Sup.

Ct. Mlun. E@), 108 Mlnn, 359, I,.I~ B.W. 60; PeopleY. The Regentsof the Unlversl~ of the State'of NewYork; 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 ew 1 645; 27RullngCaseImf 1h.b.

Volume 14 of Corpus Suris Secundum, page ~61, statesthe rule as foXlows:

"While the relationexistingbeiwesnthe collegeoruniversityaaa the 0tuatmt is ccntraotual, precln(liog

an arbltrmry

refusal to penult further

attsndanoe,

yet the power of 0uspenslOn or expulsionof studentsis an attribute of government

of eduoaticnal instltutlone,

and obviously

and of necessity

there ls impliedin 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 oollegeorunlverslty,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 auuroprlationsfmm the public treasury are viewed sanewhat m&n% oritloallybythe courts than those of private Institutions." (Undsra
acorn oura) , :.
In otherwords, it seems the onlydistlnctionmadebetweenprivate lnstita&lons

end public instltutione is thatthe.rulesof public instltutionears vlewsd sawwhatmore orltioally by the aourlsthan those of prlrate lnstitutlona. This ieindeedtrueinT~,wheretbersasonablerales aud regulations

pmmulgated.by the Board of Regentsof the University of T- sre vlevedwlth the earns force and effectas 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

betweepa studs& and that institution, the court saidr
*UllderordinaryoLrclrmetaPcesaaaacrnditLoaaa~~on / matrloulatingatauniversity establishes a contractualrelatlonshlp,

underwhich upon aanplisnce with all reasonable regulations

as to scholastic

standing,

attendance,

deportment, paymentof tuition, and otherwise,

he is entitled

to pursue his salsatedcourse to completion and rsaelve the degree or certificate

awardedfor 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 collegeof 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 issuea dlplaeLa

on ocmpllance

with the requirements."
InNeidenaeyer**Y.** Curators of the University of Missouri,

supra, the catalogue

of tie stateuniversityfor the yssrs 18$?-23% contained the statement

that applicants

for admlsslon

to the classesof 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 admittedto the Junior alma. The oatalogue forthesoholasticyear18g3-1894statedthat all law studentswere requiredto pay$5O,OOper year. The plaintiffin I.893 tendered

$40.00 for admissionto 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 abridgethose rightsby withdrawing the proposifionandpubllahingthatoantainadln the aatalogue of I.893 and 1894. And whether the plaintiff had notice of that fact before he appliedfor admission to the seoondyear.6course 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 deallugrequirsdIt shouldbe 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 citizensin the slightest degree. The court erred inrejeotingthe theoryoontained

ln the plaintiff's

instruotlou

aud in adopting that oontaiuedin 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 certainstandardof proficisncy in order for a studentto stay in the mediaalbranoh of the University. Re-admissiou was refusedthe student afterhehad failed tomaintain audmeetthe standards required. The C~ission of Appeals quoted with approvalgertain passagesfrom the opinion

of State **Y.** White, 82 Ind. 278, 42 Am. Rep. 496, whloh reoognised that certainaontraotual rights existbetweena studentand a state Supported

unlverslty,

held the regulation of the Board of Regents ti be a reasonable

one, and in the course of this opinionsaid2Honorable R. J. Parten,Page 9 (O-2&)

"A student

who ls admittedto 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, throughtheBoard 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,

malntalnordlnsry

sB of aiwipllllen3qulrsd,audthes~ of proficiency in work set-out In the w&alogne tier which he enters the University, it will in due courseof time award such student a dlplanaor degree. On the otherhand, the studentpranlses toabide by reasonable rules audregalatlonsaonoerninghls dlsalpline,

to follow the coursesof study and the scholarship requlrmuents set forth in I916

cafalogne

under.which

he enters the Unlvsrslty, and to complete

hie ooursewithin 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 Regentsof tl&~lverslty of Texakhave the effect of Leglslatlve ma&mats. The oourtalsomade it clear thatupi admlsslona stadentreoelvesthe rlght of attending the instiintlun

subJectto the reasonable rules and regulaticms prcmmlgatedby the Board of Regents and exlstlng at the time of his entrsme into the SChoOl.

In other wm&, fraawhatever theory the rlghtmay spriug,oertati fixed orvestedrlghta aoorua to the studentuponhis entrsnceinto 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 givenae:~,i&tered the oontmct first entsred into ln September, 1937,between the .stident~and the Unlversity of Texas. The only facts relatingto this part of your question shuwHanorable R.J. Parten,Page 10 (04106)

that noticewas **given** on February 14, 1939, to the parentofthe student in question

**advi@ng** that the student had been plsaedupon 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 perentsof the student and the University

with regard to his education.We fall to see, therefore,hownotlce to the parentsof thenew nilas endof the student being placedupcmscholastlcprobation 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 studentof 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 answeryour secondquestionin the nsgatlve.

V-3 fm.4 yoara,

By /s/Welter R. Emh WalterR. Koch Assietant

By /a/ Jarmes

D. SmulLeii JamesD. Smnllen

JIX%*nldS

APPHOVED

APR 16, 1940

/s/ Gerald c. MBnu

ATlYXdEXm OFTEXAS APPROVED OPINION

:rm, oHAmw