That said, see Golden Rule Insurance v Schwartz for what adding a best of knowledge clause to a certification statement in an application in Illinois does: it reduces the standard of accuracy from what is true to what the applicant reasonably believed was true. Maybe my negligence provides no cover for me, but the total absence of a hearing, skipping that step, is a dangerous way to make important decisions about people's lives. Introducing scienter was a procedural safeguard, but they skipped it.
Are you making an argument that you didn't, to the best of your knowledge, know that this program that you were placed in would be considered "be[ing] the subject of any juvenile delinquency or youthful offender proceeding?"
dontbeanidiot wrote: Second, literal application of that could lead to absurd results. If I changed the name of a person in my PS, presumably to protect their identity, and the school found out, the applicant could be dismissed by your logic. Are you saying materiality does't matter? It always matters in a contract where parties have established interests, even if they properly reserve the right to rescind in the event of nondisclosure. Perhaps their admissions office should have said something more ambiguous, but when I told them of my offense, they said that it was no longer relevant and would have no impact on a hypothetical application. They didn't even bother to qualify the statement by saying it depends on anything else . But this step was skipped too.
I think this is more along the lines of a default for a violation of a rep and warranty rather than a clause for rescission. There is no provision for a hearing. You want due process, you are going to have to go to court. It is what you agreed to when you submitted the application.
dontbeanidiot wrote: Lastly, even if the school CAN rescind, doing something just because you can is always a pretty bad reason to do it. Especially when they basically admitted this was not uniformly the way they treat these situations, that post-acceptance amendments are usually made, but that "on top of everything else" this decision was made. Voiding a contract can't take into account events that had not yet come to pass, but that statement admitted that the university was doing just that.
There is disparate treatment in the way violations of contracts happen all the time. Just because one party chooses not to exercise all of their remedies in one default situation but does in others doesn't make anything they are doing wrong. It may be unfair to the party that gets screwed, but it isn't uncommon.