Writing Homework Help

All students: You are expected to make significant comments to one case brief every week (except the week that you submit your revised case brief here). Your response should be at least 260 words. A significant comment may include any comparison to your own case brief or assigned video, any pertinent insight from your current employment about how you fulfill the holding, disagreement with the holding with rationale, etc. You will be expected to compare / contrast with current events. You should use relevant legal terms in your analysis. 

R.J. Hendricks v. Clemson University.578 S.E. 2d 711 (2003)Facts: R.J Hendricks received a scholarship from St. Leo College, and with the variety of offers and recruitment he received by several colleges, his personal choice ended up with St. Leo as it was the closest to his home. Starting his junior year, he received permission to have a conversation with the Division I schools about transferring so that he could play baseball for the Division I team. With this, Tim Corbin was being asked by Hendrick’s father for the process. Hendricks received a book scholarship amounting to $200 to $250. During summer, Hendricks talked to Barbara Kennedy-Dixon about him enrolling in classes. It implies how Hendricks has no full intention to graduate from Clemson. Hendricks hoped to use some of the hours he earned at Clemson towards his degree, and he assumed that what Kennedy-Dixon was implying would be better to take classes as it would ensure him a position in the NCAA baseball team. However, the educational institution was not offering Hendrick’s major. Instead, he was asked to enroll himself in a speech and communications major with a cluster minor in administration. As a week passed, Kennedy-Dixon realized that she was not able to evaluate if Hendrick is still complying with the fifty percent rule in compliance with the NCAA guidelines. Turns out, after advising Hendricks to drop and add classes, Kennedy-Dixon realized some miscalculations.This led to some mishaps which rendered Hendricks to be ineligible to play baseball. With this situation, Clemson has requested a waiver of the fifty-percent rule from the NCAA for Hendricks together with the written statement of Kennedy-Dixon which details her honest mistake. However, the NCAA denied the request. With the credited hours Hendricks needed to complete, Leggett believed that it would be difficult for Hendricks to make it to the traveling team. Hendricks lost his scholarship as he transferred to Clemson, and he had to pay for his full tuition.After graduating from St. Leo in December 1996, he enrolled in classes to be able to play baseball during the spring semester. He received $2000 financial assistance. At the time of the summary judgment hearing, Hendricks already graduated and worked at his father’s business. Hendricks sued Clemson for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. His alleged damages included his tuition, room, board, and living expenses at Clemson; tuition, room, board, and living expenses for the semester at St. Leo; lost wages; emotional suffering and lost enjoyment of life; lost 1996 College World Series experience; lost opportunity for playing NCAA Division I baseball; and lost professional baseball opportunities.Issue: Did the Court of Appeals err in finding a genuine issue of fact regarding the existence of a contract between Hendricks and Clemson?Holding: A breach in contract is a civil wrong and a legal cause of action, wherein the binding of agreement is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the performance of the other party. There is a breach of contract when one party fails to faithfully comply or fulfill their obligations as stated in the contract, or fails to communicate the obligation, or otherwise fails to perform his or her obligation as stated in the contract.Rationale: The trial court granted Clemson’s motion for summary judgment. With this, the court held that Clemson had not breached any contractual duty owed to Hendricks because all aspects of Hendricks scholarship obligations were deemed to be fulfilled. The court also ruled that Hendricks had not advanced any tort theory that would permit recovery under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act because Clemson’s course of action did not constitute gross negligence. In addition, the court found Hendricks alleged a form of “educational malpractice” based on simple negligence under the proposition that Clemson assumed some fiduciary duty. It rejected this action holding the legislature disallowing this type of claim by limiting the liability of public educational institutions to acts of gross negligence. As a separate ground for granting summary judgment, the trial court concluded that Hendricks had not suffered any measurable or ascertainable damages. Moreover, it has been found that Hendricks could not claim any damages for tuition or other college expenses because his scholarship terms were honored. With this, it ruled Hendrick’s other claims for damages to be too speculative.