The newspapers report that the action was taken under the Trade Practices Act, very likely section 52 which prohibits “misleading and deceptive conduct”. Since they quote someone as saying that Australian schools will be more careful about their claims it seems that the school made some sort of representation in their advertising and Ms Meyer says that it was misleading or deceptive. So this isn’t a case of a thick student who failed to learn when given the opportunity, it’s a case of a school which allegedly said one thing and delivered another.

There are a few statutory bars that might reduce the chances of success – the conduct must have been by a corporation in “trade or commerce”. Assuming that the facts can get over that hurdle, why should the school not be as liable for its conduct as any other organisation? I don’t suppose that they guaranteed that they could teach every child to read, but they probably did make some representations about the quality of their teaching. If they failed to live up to those representations then they should surely be liable for the damage caused – in this case the cost of a remedial tutor.

Bear in mind that Australian courts rarely award punitive damages, so there’s less of a jackpot mentality here than in the USA. I can’t see a judge agreeing that the child was permanently damaged, so we’re talking about a smallish financial settlement that equates to costs genuinely incurred. I think this case is a good outcome for all concerned – Ms Meyer gets compensation for her damage, the school gets a reminder to be careful in its advertising, and nobody wastes money on further court costs.

The French lawsuit seems at least plausible, if the teacher was missing class altogether. Conceivably, the student is an intended beneficiary of the teacher’s employment contract with the school, but I think that only a philosopher could come up with a way to measure damages associated with failing a philosophy exam.