My college changed my major without my consent, can I sue them? I am a college student at a new University located in Mauritius. Before I applied, I checked on their website the list of major offered. I saw: "Electrical Engineering" which was one of the main reasons why I applied. I got a fully funded scholarship as being part of the inaugural class. What is different about this university is that during the first year, you do not follow a major immediately, instead, you follow a mandatory leadership training for 1 year. Then after my first year, the asked us to pick a major. At that time, they still had the option: "Electrical Engineering" which I immediately picked. Then 4 months later, when I came back to Mauritius after the annual break, they announced that the "Electrical Engineering" degree now became "Electrical POWER SYSTEMS Engineering" . Being confused, as there were no other options available and I was not ready to drop out, I followed that major because no other degree were closed to why I came to this college initially. This Electrical and Power systems engineering was the only close option to Electrical Engineering. It has been 2 years now and I realised that the content of the degree is diverging really far from what is actually "Electrical Engineering" . I really want to drop out now but I feel that I have been a victim of "false advertising". And the consequence is that I wasted 2 years of my life following a degree that I don't like, not passionate about and not all field that I want to pursue my career on later. My college changed my major without my consent, can I sue them?
I don't know too much about Mauritian contract law, but I'd assume you'd have to identify some legal obligation that the school breached. Here, the school offered you a full ride in its electrical engineering program, and has delivered on its promise. The fact that you don't like the program anymore probably doesn't make then liable for anything. In terms of false advertising, it's hard to say anything without seeing their advertisements.
Ohwilleke's answer (i.e. 'there isn't a simple answer') covers the general principles clearly. But for your specific situation (England and Wales, appeal to the High Court Chancery Division or Court of Appeal), the answer is "Do nothing irrevocable if possible; if necessary, apply for interim directions to the Court". The Chancery Masters are used to this sort of application, and though somebody will presumably be diappointed by the decision, the trustees have no liability.
Given your reference to &quot;consumer court&quot;, I assume this is in India, so you are also concerned with the Consumer Protection Act. Under the act, your complain would have to be about one of a number of things, including most likely (iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect; where furthermore &quot;deficiency&quot; means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inade­quacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service; and &quot;service&quot; means service of any description which is made avail­able to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service; There have been conflicting reports as to whether education is a &quot;service&quot;, but the recent ruling (2 Feb 2021) by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs Dr. Virendra Swarup Public School states its position: It is settled law, as stated in the aforementioned precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission, that Educational Institutions do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and education which includes co-curricular activities such as swimming, is not a &quot;service&quot; within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 The Supreme Court of India in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur rejected an interpretation by NCDRC which concluded that education is a service, instead saying The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service...The case decided by this Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) clearly lays down the law in this regard with which we find ourselves in full agreement with In the Bihar decision, (1) the defendant was the examination board and (2) the Board is a statutory creation. Para. 11 The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a service provider' and a student who takes an examination is not a consumer' and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board. The Maharshi case likewise involved a legislatively-created educational institution. In Anupama College Of Engineering vs Gulshan Kumar, the Supreme Court cited an order from P.T. Koshy &amp; Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust &amp; Ors (which appears to be unpublished) that In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [(2010) 11 SCC 159] wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a Signature Not Verified commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Given the definite policy of the NCDRC, you cannot file a complain in consumer court. Theoretically, you could appeal up to the Indian Supreme Court, if you can distinguish your case from the Maharshi U case. Two issues raised in that case and the Bihar case that is foundational for the later case are whether the institute is a statutory institution or a private business, and whether you are a paying customer (paying tuition, not just fees). Even the most recent NCDRC ruling leaves open a distinguishing factor, that the putative deficiency relates not to education, but to an extracurricular activity made available by the institution. I conclude that the Supreme Court of India has not made a broad ruling that &quot;education is not a service&quot;, it has ruled more narrowly that in certain cases, a specific education-related entity is not providing a &quot;service&quot; If you sue, it will be dismissed, and you will have to appeal to the highest court. You'll need to hire a good attorney to figure out if there is any realistic hope of getting further clarification.
Variations of contracts must be consented to by all parties. This means that if the company sent your friend varied terms, it would have included means by which she would have consented - this may be by continuing to use a service. You cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract. You could try to charge the company PoS terminal storage fees, but it's highly unlikely to be enforceable if they don't agree to it. In theory if they are aware of the change and they accept them in some way then they are bound to the terms just as she would be, even if they later claimed that they were not aware of them. There is some precedent - in Russia - for this with a bank and it made the news some time ago. There's plenty of cases in which people who don't read EULAs or loan contracts thoroughly are still forced to honour their obligations to their creditors under them.
The answer isn't really legal (though some jurisdictions regulate the use of such titles through statute), but academic. It depends on specific countries. Italy, for instance, allows all graduates, including undergraduates, to use the title doctor. However, in general the title doctor is reserved for those in medical professions, upon graduation, or holders of post-graduate doctoral degrees - the PhD, DLitt., LLD, and so on. The purpose is, for medical graduates, to allow them to identify themselves as medical practitioners. However, for doctoral graduates, the purpose is to recognise your contributions to the academic field. The JD is a qualifying degree - you've hardly contributed to the field. The JD is absolutely not similar to a doctoral program. It is far more similar to the LLB, however its origins are rooted in the equalisation of professional degrees in the USA - the LLB was conferred upon those who had already completed their first degree, and so the change to a JD was merely so that they could confer a "second" degree.
Being disabled has nothing to do with it. If he is harassing students then after there is a complaint and investigation, then he can be banned from campus, and arrested for trespassing if he returns. But there would have to be a formal complaint made to the authorities first.
I am not a lawyer; I am not your lawyer. You do not cite a jurisdiction so this makes it very difficult to get a definitive answer. What follows is for Australia but the general principles are common law and would be applicable to other common law jurisdictions except where statues apply or case law has diverged. In the first instance, it seems that you were not party to any arrangement to pay for the electricity. So on the face of it you are not party to any contract requiring you to pay. Even if there was such an agreement: family, domestic, social and voluntary agreements (which this would be) are presumed not to be intended to legally bind the participants. Whether this presumption would be overturned would depend on the specific facts. On the face of it, there is no legal obligation to pay. Your options are: Do nothing; this puts the ball in their court, they can: Forget about it (it would then be over) Attempt to sue you with little prospect of success (which would cost them and you a lot more than $50 irrespective of who won) Do something illegal like beating you up (you really need to assess this risk) Tell everyone they know (in person and on social media) what a skiving prick you are (you could probably sue them for damages but that's not really going to happen, is it?) Pay them what they are asking Offer to pay them something less. Option 1 is likely to break any relationship you have with the person, Option 2 is likely to preserve it and Option 3 could go either way. Ultimately, like most legal questions, this is not about the law; it's about relationships ... broken ones mostly.
Without commenting on the relatively strange situation itself, it is still useful to actually read what was actually said than what was described in a letter from a third person, even if the relayed information is technically true. The supposed basis for the claim of a zero salary is from an email allegedly sent by the department head (appendix 15): In short, you are not teaching in 2022/2023 and you have not submitted the required outline of your research or other engagement. I am very sorry that we cannot establish that you will be doing any work expected of a faculty member. Thus we cannot pay you. Starting with the Fall semester, your pay will be reduced to zero and you will be placed on unpaid personal leave. Essentially, the professor is being put on an unpaid leave because allegedly he is not doing any work. Consequently, minimum wage laws are not engaged even if the professor is not exempt as teachers since he is not being required to do any work. In the U.S., employers generally can do this (unless a work contract provides otherwise); in many circumstances, it is called being laid off (though the term has attracted a permanent connotation in parts of North America) or being suspended. An indefinite unpaid leave can be considered constructive dismissal if the employer does not reasonably allow the employee to return to work. It may not be constructive dismissal if the unpaid leave is prescribed by binding employer policies or because the employee refuses to work (and the employer allows the employment relationship to continue). Even if it is constructive dismissal, it is not automatically wrongful.