Steinberg V the Chicago Medical School

3234 Words May 6th, 2013 13 Pages
Steinberg v The Chicago Medical School
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Mejda, P.J., and McGloon, J

DEMPSEY, Justice:
In December 1973 the plaintiff, Robert Steinberg, applied for admission to the defendant, the Chicago Medical School, as a first-year student for the academic year 1974--75 and paid an application fee of $15. The Chicago Medical School is a private, not-for-profit educational institution, incorporated in the State of Illinois. His application for admission was rejected and Steinberg filed a class action against the school, claiming that it had failed to evaluate his application and those of other applicants according to the academic entrance criteria printed in the school's bulletin.
…show more content…
Generally, parties may contract in any situation where there is no legal prohibition, since the law acts by restraint and not by conferring rights. Berry v. De Bruyn (1898), 77 Ill.App. 359. However, it is basic contract law that in order for a contract to be binding the terms of the contract must be reasonably certain and definite. Kraftco Corp v. Koblus (1971), 1 Ill.App.3d 635, 274 N.E.2d 153.

A contract, in order to be legally binding, must be based on consideration. Wickstrom v. Vern E. Alden Co. (1968), 99 Ill.App.2d 254, 240 N.E.2d 401. Consideration has been defined to consist of some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, disadvantage, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. Riddle v. La Salle National Bank (1962), 34 Ill.App.2d 116, 180 N.E.2d 719. Money its a valuable consideration and its transfer or payment or promises to pay it or the benefit from the right to its use, will support a contract.

In forming a contract, it is required that both parties assent to the same thing in the same sense (La Salle National Bank v. International Limited (1970), 129 Ill.App.2d 381, 263 N.E.2d 506) and that their minds meet on the essential terms and conditions. Richton v. Farina (1973), 14 Ill.App.3d 697, 303 N.E.2d 218. Furthermore, the mutual consent essential to the formation of a contract, must be gathered from the language employed by the parties or manifested by their words or