Dalton v. Educational Testing Service

87 N.Y.2d 384, 663 N.E.2d 289 (1995)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

Brian Dalton (plaintiff) challenged Educational Testing Service (ETS) (defendant) after ETS questioned the validity of his SAT scores due to a significant increase and handwriting discrepancies. Dalton provided evidence against ETS’s claim but ETS still refused to release his scores.

The issue was whether ETS acted in good faith under their contract with Dalton. The trial court and Appellate Division ruled in favor of Dalton, but the Court of Appeals modified the decision, requiring ETS to reconsider Dalton’s information in good faith rather than mandating score release.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

Brian Dalton (plaintiff) was a high school student who took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) administered by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) (defendant). He first took the exam in May and then again in November.

Dalton agreed to abide by ETS’s conditions, which included the right for ETS to cancel scores if they believed there was a reason to question their validity. Dalton’s score on the second SAT increased significantly, which led ETS to review his results due to suspicions of cheating, based on handwriting discrepancies.

ETS notified Dalton of their preliminary decision to cancel his November scores and offered him options, including submitting additional information. Dalton provided evidence of his illness during the first test, results from a preparatory course, statements verifying his presence at the second exam, and a document examiner’s report affirming he completed both answer sheets.

ETS continued to question the scores, leading to Dalton’s action to compel ETS to release his November SAT scores.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon
  1. Brian Dalton’s SAT score increased by more than 350 points, triggering a review by ETS.
  2. ETS preliminarily decided to cancel Dalton’s November score based on handwriting analysis.
  3. Dalton submitted additional information contesting the cancellation.
  4. ETS stood by its decision, resulting in Dalton commencing legal action.
  5. The trial court ruled in favor of Dalton, directing ETS to release the scores.
  6. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
  7. ETS appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York.

I.R.A.C. Format


Issue Icon

Whether Educational Testing Service acted in good faith under the contract with Brian Dalton when it refused to release his SAT scores based on a handwriting discrepancy.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

Implicit in all contracts is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the course of contract performance. This includes not acting arbitrarily or irrationally when exercising discretion granted by a contract.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The Court of Appeals found that ETS had indeed agreed to allow Dalton to present additional information if his test score validity was questioned.

The courts below determined that ETS did not act in good faith because they failed to properly evaluate the additional information provided by Dalton that was relevant to the issue at hand. The Court of Appeals upheld these findings, agreeing that ETS breached its contract with Dalton.

However, the court clarified that Dalton was entitled to good-faith consideration of his information by ETS, not necessarily the release of his questioned scores. The court emphasized that while it is reluctant to interfere with academic discretion, it will enforce contract rights and ensure that specific performance aligns with the contractual promise.


Conclusion Icon

The Court modified the order from the courts below and affirmed it as modified, ensuring that Brian Dalton’s case received a good-faith review from ETS rather than an automatic release of his disputed SAT scores.

Dissenting Opinions

Judge Icon

Judge LEVINE dissented, arguing that there was no evidence that ETS acted without good faith and that ETS had considered Dalton’s submissions adequately. Judge SIMONS concurred with this dissenting opinion.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. ETS has a right to cancel SAT scores if they have reason to question their validity but must act in good faith when exercising this right.
  2. Dalton was entitled to a fair consideration of additional information he provided and not an automatic release of his scores.
  3. The Court of Appeals upheld that ETS breached its contract by failing to properly consider Dalton’s evidence.
  4. Good-faith compliance with stated procedures is required from standardized testing services like ETS when handling questioned test scores.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What constitutes a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing?

A breach occurs when a party to a contract acts in a manner that undermines the purpose of the agreement, such as by refusing to fulfill a contractual promise without a legitimate reason.

  • For example: An insurer unreasonably denying a legitimate claim by an insured party, contravening the insurance contract’s intent.

In what ways can discretion granted by a contract be exercised irrationally?

Discretion is exercised irrationally when it lacks sound judgment or reasonable basis, particularly in ignoring relevant factors that should guide the decision-making process.

  • For example: A landlord arbitrarily refusing a tenant’s renewal option without regard to the tenant’s past timely payments and adherence to lease terms.

How do courts enforce implied promises in contracts?

Courts enforce implied promises by interpreting contractual obligations that may not be explicitly stated but are essential for the contract’s execution and fairness between parties.

  • For example: A court might require an employer to provide a promised promotion if the employee met all stated performance criteria implicit in their employment agreement.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Contracts