Summary Of Dalton V. Educational Testing Services

GOOD FAITH CONTRACT BREACH
In Dalton v. Educational Testing Services, the court will consider if ETS breached its contract with a student and if the remedy of specific performance is a necessity. In May 1991, Brian Dalton took the SAT exam. Then, in November 1992, he retook the exam and scored 410 points higher. Before all exams, students sign a contract with the Educational Testing Service (ETS). This contract states if ETS flags a student for cheating, he or she has five options: cancel the score, have a third party review it, go to an arbitrator, retake the test, or send in information relevant to verify the exam. Because Dalton scored more than 350 points greater than his previous exam and had different handwriting on the two tests, the

ETS can be valuable to Dalton when forming his arguments. In Dalton v. ETS, similar to Yaeger V. ETS, the plaintiff is an individual who sues based on the grounds that ETS violated its stipulations of score review. Before taking this case to court, Dalton complied with the policy of ETS and signed the contract. However, ETS did not fulfill its terms. ETS did not provide Dalton with his score, so Dalton can argue ETS did not act in good faith because it refused to release his score. Additionally, the contract allowed Dalton to petition the cheating accusation with added documentation. He submitted personal testimonies and affidavits of fellow students and the proctor, who all corroborated his presence in the testing room. According to the contract of the ETS, Dalton followed the procedures in good faith. According to the precedent case of Yaeger, parties must perform contracts in good faith. ETS did not perform its portion of the contract in good faith when the service only considered its own evidence. The court will likely rule ETS breached its contract with Dalton by not following its own stipulated process of appeal. If the court finds ETS did not act in good faith, then Dalton may petition for a remedy of specific