Opinion ID: 6536511
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Yu's breach of contract claims.

Text: Yu next argues that he had a written contract with ISU based on documents like ISU's Governing Policies and Procedures, graduate catalogs, student and faculty handbooks, and the American Psychological Association Accreditation standards. He continues to argue that the date of accrual of his breach of contract claims falls between March 13, 2016, and March 26, 2016, because that is when he received expert opinions that laid the foundation for his breach of contract claims. The distinction between implied contracts and written contracts is important to Yu's claims because a five-year statute of limitations for written contracts would make Yu's breach of contract claims timely even under the October 2, 2013 accrual date. However, we agree with the district court's analysis that the cited documents, at best, give rise to a claim for breach of an implied contract with a four-year statute of limitations. An action based upon an oral or implied contract must be brought within four years of the date of accrual, while an action based upon a written contract must be brought within 5 years. I.C. §§ 5-216 and 217. The statute of limitations does not begin to run until a claim accrues upon the breach of the contract. Spence v. Howell, 126 Idaho 763 , 770, 890 P.2d 714 , 721 (1995). It is well-settled that the principal relationship between a college and its students is contractual. Wickstrom v. N. Idaho Coll., 111 Idaho 450 , 452, 725 P.2d 155 , 157 (1986) (citing Peretti v. State of Montana, 464 F.Supp. 784 , 786 (D.Mont.1979), rev'd on other grounds, 661 F.2d 756 (9th Cir.1981) ). Because a formal contract is rarely prepared, the general nature and terms of the agreement are usually implied, with specific terms to be found in the university bulletin and other publications; custom and usages can also become specific terms by implication. Id. (quoting Peretti, 464 F.Supp. at 786 ). Even where the contract's terms are within a university's published documents, Idaho courts have treated the contractual relationship between student and college as implied. See Wickstrom, 111 Idaho at 452 , 725 P.2d at 157 (citing Peretti, 464 F.Supp. at 786 ) (the general nature and terms of the agreement are usually implied, with specific terms to be found in the university bulletin and other publications ;) (emphasis added); George, 121 Idaho at 38, 822 P.2d at 557 (based on the excerpts of the University's Faculty-Staff Handbook ... the University had an implied contractual obligation 'to fulfill its responsibilities in pursuit of the academic goals and objectives of all members of the university community,' ). There is no evidence in the record that Yu had an express or formal written  contract with ISU. Nor has he shown how the documents he relies upon established contractual intent by the parties. His argument for a written contract-and its corresponding five-year statute of limitations-is based on ISU's written and published documents and policies. While the documents are in writing, they do not constitute an express contract between the student and university. Instead, at best, those writings provide the terms of an implicit agreement. See Wickstrom, 111 Idaho at 452 , 725 P.2d at 157 (quoting Peretti, 464 F.Supp. at 786 ); George, 121 Idaho at 38, 822 P.2d at 557. Accordingly, a four-year statute of limitations for implied contracts applies with the latest possible date of accrual on October 2, 2013; the date Yu's administrative appeals were exhausted. Because Yu filed his claims outside the requisite four-year period, the district court properly dismissed his breach of contract claims as time-barred.