I wasn't aware that they round these things. Do they really? If I get a 3.98 (hahaha!) is that considered a 4.0?
I don't get this, obviously.
It's probably a losing argument. However...
Your GPA could already be rounded up from a 3.977 to 3.98 because your school observes a 4.00 grade scale. However, if a K is formed between student and school, and school says student has to keep a 2.0 GPA (rather than a 2.00 GPA), then I can see the argument that a 1.98 rounds up to 2.0, just like a 1.977 rounds up to a 1.98 on a 2.00 grade scale.
Plus, contracts was way too long ago for me now, and I've forgotten pretty much everything, but I vaguely remember a doctrine about ambiguity that says the interpretation of one party might control in a K under certain circumstances.
I think you are referring to the idea that if a contract is ambiguous and the first party knows or has reason to know of the second party's interpretation and the second party does not know nor has reason to know of the 1st party's interpretation then the contract is formed on the second party's interpretation. If neither party knew or had reason to know of each other's intentions, however, then there is inadequate mutual assent (as some put it, no "meeting of the minds" took place) and neither is bound..... I guess it is just an attempt for courts to try to combine subjectivity with objectivity.
So here, though it seems like the original poster should have had at least a reason to know that the school meant 2.00 or above. But he of course would argue that the school should know based on correspondences etc. that he would believe it meant a 2.0 or what rounds to a 2.0. If neither of them knew though then the contract would be void regardless so it wouldn't help him any.
Pretty sure that's how most courts view it. I might be wrong though and it might only be under Article 2 of the UCC in which case it wouldn't apply anyways since no goods were exchanged. Pretty sure it is a common law rule though since I remember something about courts wanting to move slightly away from the decision in the Peerless
shipping case which used an entirely objective standard.