Smith v. University of Oregon

Oregon follows an objective theory of contracts when determining whether parties have mutually agreed to contract modification. But that agreement "may be expressed in words or inferred from [the parties'] actions." Bennett v. Farmers Ins. Co., 332 Or. 138, 148, 26 P.3d 785 (2001).

Smith appealed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the University of Oregon. Smith claimed that the school’s decision to offer only remote learning during the Spring 2020 quarter was a breach of the educational contract that he had with the university, which he claimed guaranteed him an in-person education. Smith argued that his payment of tuition for Spring 2020, and his subsequent attendance of remote classes, were not evidence that he agreed to modify the educational contract, but rather evidence of an effort to mitigate damages. The university argued that Smith’s actions were evidence of his agreement to modification.

Oregon applies an objective standard to determine whether parties have mutually agreed to modify a contract and considers both express statements and parties’ actions in making that determination. See Lyons v. Beeman, 311 Or. App. 560, 570, 494 P.3d 358 (2021). The Court concluded that Smith's actions—paying his tuition, attending remote classes, and not communicating an intention to maintain the right to an in-person education—manifested acceptance of contract modification.

"Affirmed."