the course of this opinionsaid2 HonorableR. J. Parten,Page 9 (O-2&)
"A studentwho ls admittedto the unlvereltyreoelves the prl~llegeof attendlngthat lnstltutlonsub.l;ofto the reasouablerutis andregulationsmmmluatedbyi3.mBoard ofRegents..eudexlstlngat the time ofhls sntrame intO the sohool." (Undersooringoura)
Consequently,wehold ln snswer td your flrst'questlon thtittid cataloguesof We Univexxltyof Texw and bulletinsissued,mailed to stu- dents and prospectivestuds&s of tiat institution,constitutesn offer to oontraatonthe part of the stats, throughtheBoard ofRegents,and that the acts ofreglstratlanoonstltuteacceptanceof suchan offerby the stu- dent. On the part of the Uni~erslty it ls agreed that lf the studentwill payhls reglstratlon,tmdallotherreqnlrsd fees enddeposlte, follow the coursesprescribedin the oatfdogue,malntaln ordlnsrysB of aiwi- pllllen3qulrsd,audthes~ of proficiencyin work set-out In the w&alogne tier which he enters the University,it will in due course of time award such studenta dlplanaor degree. On the other hand, the stu- dentpranlses toabide by reasonablerules audregalatlonsaonoerninghls dlsalpline,to follow the coursesof study and the scholarshiprequlrmuents set forth in I916cafalogneunder.whichhe enters the Unlvsrslty,and to completehie ooursewithin ths period prescribed. WehoUl that sucha cm- traotwas areatedunder the faots set forth in your letter.
Eowevhr,were we to hold that a contractualrelationshipdoes not eilstbetweenthe Universltyendone of its etadents,webelleve thatunder the oase ofFoleyv.Bsnedlct, supra, the rssultwouldbe the seme. Inthe BePedlctcase, tbeCamlsslonofAppsals pointedoutthatreasonible mles and reglllntlinl0 prmrmleateaby the Board of Regents of tl&~lverslty of Texakhave the effect of Leglslatlvema&mats. The oourtalsomade it clear thatupi admlsslona stadentreoelvesthe rlght of attendingthe instiintlunsubJectto the reasonablerules and regulaticmsprcmmlgatedby the Board of Regents and exlstlngat the time of his entrsme into the SChoOl.
In other wm&, fraa whatever theory the rlghtmay spriug,oertati fixed orvestedrlghta aoorua to the studentuponhis entrsnceinto the State University"tier a particularcatalogue". We do not believe that these flxedorvested rights so acquiredby the studentoanbe changedor modified to hlcdetrlmsnt by the prmml@lm of retxoaotlve~~niles and regi- lathns by the Board of Regsnts of the Onlversityof Texas. Such would not be reasonablerules audreguXatlonswithin themsaulngof theBsnedlctoase, sugra. In aumer to your second questionof whethe* Or not as a matter of law uuder the facta of the case the partieshave'&l&ed, modified,or wended the orlginalaontra&as tonake ths nsw re~&&e&@Mmumofimrk rules applloableto the student in question,we 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~andthe Unlver- sity of Texas. The only facts relatingto this part of your questionshuw HanorableR.J. Parten,Page 10 (04106)
that notice was given on February 14, 1939, to the parentofthe student in questionadvi@ng that the studenthad been plsaedupon scholastic probationand alsoadvlsingof thenews- of work required.
There is no evidenceunder the faots set forth in your letter thatawntrsctww ever entered lntobetween the perentsof the student and the Universitywith regard to his education. We fall to see, there- fore,hownotlce to the parentsof thenew nilas endof the studentbeing placedupcmscholastlcprobationaudacceptanceby themofsaldnotlce~ could inanywlse alterormodify the aontreutenteredlntobstweenthe ~llnlw~ltyof 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 continueunder the orlglnaloc&raot, of his own aooeptsnoeof the new rules as promulgatedby the Boexd of Regents in 1938; or, even lf