Guillot v. Spencer Business College, Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 October 1972
• Docket Number: No. 5040,5040
• Citation: 267 So.2d 738
• Parties: Felix J. GUILLOT, Jr. v. SPENCER BUSINESS COLLEGE, INC.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 738

267 So.2d 738

Felix J. GUILLOT, Jr. v. SPENCER BUSINESS COLLEGE, INC.

No. 5040.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 4, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1972.

Writ Denied Dec. 21, 1972.

Jesse S. Guillot, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Neville G. Orrett, Metairie, for defendant-appellee.

Before REDMANN, STOULIG and BAILES, JJ.

BAILES, Judge.

Plaintiff sues to recover $523.75 allegedly due him as the unearned portion of a tuition fee of $1,795.00 paid to defendant for the enrollment of plaintiff's son, David, in defendant's business school in the city of New Orleans.

The judgment appealed from rendered in favor of defendant, rejecting the demands of the plaintiff, at his costs, is correct. We affirm.

For a cause of action against defendant, the plaintiff allged that, knowing that his son could be called into the armed services of the United States, defendant induced, encouraged and persuaded plaintiff to enroll his son in its school on the representation that the tuition would not have to be paid if it was necessary for his son to leave school or if he was called into the armed services; that the tuition charge was $1,795.00, plus $40,00 for books, which amounted to an average monthly charge of $144.55 for the twelve month course; that he paid $795.00 cash, plus a note for a student loan for the balance of $1,000.00 due; that his son was a student at defendant's school for less than two months; that he was drafted on March 2, 1970; and that he is entitled to a refund of $523.75.

Alternatively, plaintiff pleads unjust enrichment and that the contract is null and void because of misrepresentation and for error and mistake, all perpetrated by representatives of the defendant in order to obtain the signature of plaintiff to the contract.

Defendant's answer is essentially a general denial, however, it did affirmatively allege that the contract between the parties contained reference to the refund policy of the school, and that plaintiff, prior to signing the contract, was fully aware of said refund policy and did agree to same.

Plaintiff seeks to establish proof of his allegations solely by his own testimony and that of his wife, Mrs. Rose Guillot. Their testimony is practically of the same context, and that is that Mr. Muray Solow, the defendant's Admissions Representative, stated to them that the defendant would return part of the tuition if David was called into the armed services and that he would get David 'out' for a whole year, meaning that he, defendant's representative, would secure a one year deferment for David. Plaintiff further testified that Mr. Solow told him that he had connections with the draft board and that he would get his son 'out for a whole year.'

On cross-examination by defense counsel, plaintiff gave this testimony:

'Q. What misrepresentation did Mr. Solow make?

'A. Said he could get my son out of the service. No. 2, said he would refund my money back, don't cost me a penny.'

Defendant's president and director, Mr. Guy Reed Pappelis, testified that plaintiff's son, David, contacted the school about admission, at which time an interview was arranged with David and his parents in their home where the contract was signed by plaintiff . Additionally, he testified that upon David receiving his draft notice, the school assisted him in seeking a student deferment in keeping with the policy of...