# Cavaliere v. Duff's Business Institute

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · March 24, 1992 · 413 Pa. Super. 357

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728685

## Case

- **Full name:** Patricia A. CAVALIERE, an Individual; Lettie M. Gustis, an Individual; Kristie L. Gustis, an Individual, Appellants, v. DUFF’S BUSINESS INSTITUTE, a Corporation and Phillips Colleges, Inc., a Corporation
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 24, 1992
- **Citations:** 413 Pa. Super. 357; 605 A.2d 397; 1992 Pa. Super. LEXIS 820
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson
- **Judges:** Beck, Johnson, Hoffman
- **Cited by:** 46 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728685

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing no policy consideration supporting bar against causes of action for breach of contract or misrepresentation where private trade school positively represents that certain curriculum will be offered and it is not or that school is accredited to give certain degree wh…
- finding that a breach of contract suit against a private educational institution would be theoretically viable in certain circumstances
- noting that court could “fathom no policy against permitting a cause of action for breach of contract” against the school where “the nature of the contractual undertaking and the breach thereof are clear”
- observing that, in such cases, “the nature of the contractual undertaking and the breach thereof are clear and the plaintiff may be able to establish a cause of action against the offending institution”

## Opinion text

JOHNSON, Judge,
concurring.
I join so much of the Majority Opinion as determines that the complaint is clearly insufficient and that the most distinguished trial judge, the Honorable R. Stanton Wettick, Jr., did not err in sustaining the preliminary objections and dismissing the complaint.
Judge Wettick found that, although the plaintiffs set forth certain educational standards in their complaint, there was no claim that any of those standards had been breached. He further found that the complaint contained numerous conclusory allegations that fell short of the specificity required in fact pleading. None of the fourteen specific paragraphs contained in the defendants’ demurrer to the complaint raise the issue of common law educational malpractice.
I do not necessarily disagree with some of the observations in the Majority Opinion regarding the issue of a common law action for breach of contract against a private trade school. However, on the pleadings before us on this appeal, the complaint is so deficient that the action of the trial court may be affirmed without delving into whether Pennsylvania should recognize a general cause of action for *372 educational malpractice in matters involving private trade schools.
The Majority acknowledges in a footnote that the distinguished trial court specifically invited the plaintiffs to seek leave to amend their complaint in order to more specifically set forth both the alleged agreement between the parties and the breach. The plaintiffs have not sought such relief either from the trial court or from this court during the appeal. I am satisfied that the complaint which we are called upon to review does not set forth a cause of action upon which relief could be granted, regardless of whether Pennsylvania had in place a cause of action for educational malpractice.
This matter has come to us specially submitted on briefs, without oral argument. The complaint is deficient on its face. I would postpone consideration of the issues surrounding causes of action based upon educational malpractice until that problem is squarely presented. I therefore must concur in the result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728685. Public record. Not legal advice.