Sean Brosnan was a high school senior. He filled out his applications for college in September of 2015, including an application for early decision to Queens University. In December Brosnan received a thick packet from Queens, which included a glossy brochure entitled, "Welcome to Queens." The first page of the brochure said, "Welcome to Queens!! We are delighted to have you as a member of the university community! We will be holding a place for you in the class of 2020 if you submit a $200 deposit by January 20. We would remind you that by your application for early decision, you indicated your commitment that if you were accepted to Queens, you would withdraw any applications that you have filed to other colleges and universities." The brochure included an "Acceptance Coupon" providing that the signer was making a "definite commitment to attend Queens University during the coming academic year, to withdraw applications from any other colleges and universities, and to enclose a check for $200." Brosnan signed the form and sent it with a $200 check to the Queens Admission Office. He then withdrew his applications from the six other universities to which he had applied. A few days later he got a phone call from the Director of Admissions at Queens saying, "I'm sorry, we did not intend to give you the impression that you had been accepted. Your mailing should have been a deferral letter and should not have included the acceptance brochure. In any case, you had no business sending in a check -- we didn't even send you a letter of acceptance. We are returning your check."

Please discuss the questions below using common law contract principles.

Has Queens University entered into a contract with Sean Brosnan? Give the legal arguments that can be made...

This is true for several reasons:
• The information packet indicated that he was accepted even if an "acceptance letter" to that effect was not technically sent out.

• The information packet indicated that all he had to do to cinch up his spot was to send a $200 deposit, which he did. The packet indicated explicitly that doing so was considered a "definite commitment" to attending the school. He was, in essence, offered a contract from the school. He was to presumably pay tuition upon his acceptance and he would receive consideration (his education and other related services) in return. The tendering of the $200 check was his acceptance of that offer.

• The packet explicitly told him to renege on trying to get into the other schools. In effect, he was relying on the information in the packet and this turned out to be to his detriment when the school "changed its mind" and told him he had not gotten into school. While some might argue that he should not have relied on the packet without also getting an acceptance letter, the packet made it clear that he was to do so and that is what he did. As such, the school would owe him some sort of damages (if not admittance to the school) due to the mishap. The school made a mistake...not Mr. Brosnan.

While the question asks the author to look at things from the perspective of the school and Mr. Brosnan, whoever sent that packet to Mr. Brosnan, given his non-acceptance status, clearly erred. If that is a general packet sent to non-accepted people (unlikely), the materials need to be drastically changed because they do create a contract if the deposit is rendered (and it was in this case). Beyond that, the school's attempt to wriggle out of that created contract is itself despicable and should be…