Opinion ID: 1931375
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Colby Breached the Agreement by Allowing a Disciplinary Appeal

Text: [¶ 7] Millien does not challenge the trial court's finding that Colby was contractually obligated to provide him a disciplinary process that meets common standards of fair play, meets [his] reasonable expectations and provides fundamental fairness. [2] He claims, however, that the court erred in finding that Colby satisfied this obligation, because the claimant's appeal of the Dean's Hearing Board's decision to the Appeals Board was not authorized by the disciplinary process described in the student handbook and thus was not within the scope of his reasonable expectations. [¶ 8] The intent of the parties in entering a contract, whether a contract exists, and whether a breach has occurred are all questions of fact that we review for clear error. Forrest Assocs. v. Passamaquoddy Tribe, 2000 ME 195, ¶ 9, 760 A.2d 1041, 1044. [¶ 9] The court found that the student handbook was not a binding contract per se. [3] The court based this conclusion largely on the handbook's reservation clause. Under Maine law, a reservation to either party of an unlimited right to determine the nature and extent of his performance renders his obligation too indefinite for legal enforcement, making it, as it is termed, merely illusory. Corthell v. Summit Thread Co., 132 Me. 94, 99, 167 A. 79, 81 (1933). Thus, the court did not err in concluding that the handbook was not a binding contract or the exclusive source of the terms of the parties' agreement. [¶ 10] The court also did not err in finding that Colby's allowance of an appeal from the Dean's Hearing Board to the Appeals Board did not constitute a breach of contract. The court expressly credited the testimony of Dean Kassman concerning the existence and interpretation of the college's own disciplinary processes. Kassman testified to the College's reliance on the reservation clause to make changes to the handbook over the course of a year, ... to leave open avenues for us to make reasonable changes when we wanted to [without notice to the students]. She also testified that Colby's disciplinary process is not intended to provide a level of process similar to that found in a court of law that follows the rules of evidence, but rather is intended to be an informal process in the nature of a quasi legal system with people of goodwill who will use common sense to try to come to some resolution. Kassman testified that although the procedures of the Dean's Hearing Board are not set forth in the handbook, the Board has been in place since 1981. She and other witnesses testified to other circumstances in which decisions of the Dean's Hearing Board could have been appealed to the Appeals Board. [¶ 11] Both the student handbook and a pamphlet about sexual assault address the responsibility of the Dean's Hearing Board to adjudicate claims of sexual assault. The possibility of subsequent appellate review by the Appeals Board is suggested by the student handbook as well as by Colby's established practices. The handbook states that the Appeals Board serves to provide a formally structured panel of appeals to which any student may petition for a review of any case which the student feels has not been adjudicated fairly. [4] (Emphasis added.) The handbook does not restrict Appeals Board review to cases that originate with the Judicial Board. In addition, other decisions of the Dean's Hearing Board could have been appealed to the Appeals Board in recent years. [¶ 12] Although Millien might not have had actual knowledge of the possibility of an appeal until Kassman informed him of it after the decision of the Dean's Hearing Board, the contract required only that the disciplinary process meet his reasonable expectations. The reservation clause in the handbook and the other evidence support the court's conclusion that Millien and other Colby students should reasonably expect that an accusation of sexual assault will be considered in the first instance by the Dean's Hearing Board, and that its decision may be subject to appellate review by the Appeals Board. The court did not clearly err in concluding that Colby's disciplinary process, including appellate review of the Dean's Hearing Board's decision by the Appeals Board, was within the scope of what Millien should have reasonably expected.