Sarah is a law professor at the University of Mexico. She has been an adjunct for three weeks and she sees posts come up in terms of the full-time tenure track position with benefits. The post reads "A full-time position with the University of Mexico requires a payment of $30 per application fee, along with a transcript from an accredited institution, an application, as well as a listing of all transcripts."

Sarah turns in her transcripts with the application fee of $30. Sarah gets a letter in the mail saying that she has been rejected. She goes to Human Resources and asks why she was rejected. She examines her application and finds that the examiners never even read her materials. They selected the candidates to move forward based on who they knew and who has shown interest on social platforms and not on the qualifications of the applicants. Sarah, being a lawyer, as well as a law professor, sues the University of Mexico for breach of contract based on the unilateral contract created by the university of charging a fee to examine the materials in the application. The University responds to the lawsuit by stating that the application was not a contract, and was not under any obligation to contact the applicants in a manner that would allude to a full examination of their application packet.

1. Do you think that there was an agreement between the University and Sarah?

2. If you believe that the University and Sarah had a contract, do you believe that the University had a duty to fully examine all of her materials before turning her down?

3. If you believe that the University and Sarah did not have a contract, is the University's performance on the contract solely gratuitous? ( meaning that they only have to respond if they feel moved to)