A province and its largest university created a program by which the province would give funding to disadvantaged students. Students were told by the university that they would receive funding over four years, and on that basis, they enrolled in the program. The students dealt only with the university. In the third year of the program, the province restructured it so that students had to obtain their maximum Canada Student Loan before being eligible for funding. The students sued for a declaration requiring the province to pay them at the original funding level for the full four years on the basis of a binding contract with the province. They claimed that they reasonably believed they had a contractual arrangement with the province not to alter the terms and conditions of the funding arrangement. The province defended by stating that there was no contract with the students because they had not communicated their acceptance to it but dealt only with the university; if anyone was bound, it was the university. Discuss the merits of each partys argument. Who do you think should succeed?