1. Plagiarism in UK Universities
2. Cheshire. 1996.Fifoot and Furmston's Law of Contract, 13th ed, 629Butterworths.
3. 2000.Blake, 27 July An alternative approach might be to look at the benefits which a university might gain by 'skimped' or inadequate performance of their contractual obligations, and to compensate in line with the (apparent) 'gain' to the institution rather than loss to the student. This could be an attractive route to a student litigant, given the somewhat speculative nature of future financial loss. Such an award is not on all fours with the standard approach in calculating damages in breach of contract cases. It receives some support from the Court of Appeal decision in AG v Blake [1998] 1 All ER 833. See in particular the judgement of Lord Woolf MR (as he then was) at 843-846. However, in the recent House of Lords' decision in considerable caution was expressed as to the possibility of widespread awards based on gain to the defendant. As Lord Steyn put it '… I am not at present willing to endorse the broad observations of the Court of Appeal. Exceptions to the general principle that there is no remedy for disgorgement of profits against a contract breaker are best hammered out at the anvil of concrete cases'.
4. Cheshire. 1996.Fifoot and Furmston's Law of Contract,, 13 th ed, 646Butterworths.
5. 1970. D'Mello v Loughborough College of Technology.The Times, 17 June On the facts, O'Connor J held that there had been no breach of contract, seemingly (the report is very brief) because the student complaint related to the quality of what the college had provided, and the college had to be left to make up its own mind as to how it conducted the course