In Odemena v Devlin et al., a law student sued the Massachusetts School of Law under the National Consumer Protection Act, when a teacher changed the assessment of school curricula, allowing the student to obtain a D grade for the course.22 The student was dismissed from the program for academic reasons and could not be admitted to another law school. The student filed a complaint about litigation costs as well as damages for future income losses as a lawyer. The professor stated that he had modified the written curriculum orally on the first day of teaching to reflect the change in assessment methods. This statement from the teacher was found in another student`s notes, which confirmed the teacher`s assertion that he had informed the class of the change. According to a doctrine of contract law known in contract law, a unilateral oral statement, which has not been agreed by the parties, cannot be used as the basis for another agreement if contrary conditions are set out in the agreement. The Odemena case was dismissed in June 2015 for non-law. But even if such a lawsuit continued, the student would have had a hard time convincing a jury that he would have suffered financial harm that went beyond lost tuition fees. Syllabi are learning tools that recall the requirements of the courses and serve as a permanent registration for organ accreditation and faculty examinations. Despite the long-standing precedent of non-interference in the professional judgment of an academic and the lack of legality, the Syllabi are often at the root of the students` contradiction. Although the courts do not consider the programs to be contracts, they may give rise to complaints and complaints of Class 54.54 They can also be used as evidence in complaints and court hearings, including various performance evaluation methods or issues such as academic integrity/plagiarism, copyright, class registration and program change policy7. While the few courts that have dealt with the issue have concluded that a school program is not a contract and that it is risky to qualify a contract teaching program, it may indeed be advantageous to treat Le Syllabi as such.

Although school curricula are not considered legal documents, it is good practice for teachers to treat them as such and build them on the basis of clear contract principles, with an emphasis on the prevention of pedagogical errors. You don`t have to be a lawyer to develop this expertise. Table 1 presents some good practices in the creation of law-based education programs. On the basis of literary research and the search of university websites, the identification or declaration of curricula as contracts was obvious, including the widespread use of the term “apprenticeship contract”. 6-13 In recent decades, much of the literature has characterized the Syllabi as contracts and invoked the term “contract” or “apprenticeship contract” when referring to syllabi.9,10 Faculty members and students seem to regard a program as a contract.9,14,15 In a study of members and students of the nursing school, 74% of faculty members and 49% of students identified a program as a contract.1 In defining the four main functions of the programs, Matejka and Kurke9 identified “a contract between teacher and student” and explained the importance of “making the program a binding agreement”. They suggest that students sign a statement, that they “have read this curriculum in its entirety, and understand and accept the requirements of the courses.” 9 Self-apprenticeships often use an “apprenticeship contract.” 16 Unlike syllabi, apprenticeship contracts are often established by the student and verified by the faculty member, who then provides feedback and proposals for change.17 Although literature, faculty members and students may regard a program as a contract, the last arbiter is the judicial system.