The Upper Crust Academy, an exclusive boarding school, has inserted the following clause into its standard form agreement: The parents of hereby authorize the Principal to ensure that said child shall receive a proper social and academic education in accordance with the highest standards of personal conduct and that said child will be kept free from danger while in the custody of Upper Crust Academy. Like everyone else whose child attended the academy, Manjunath's parents signed the agreement. One evening, Manjunath was returned to the academy by the local police after he was found stealing pylons off the street. In addition to the mischief he caused in the streets, Manjunath was in breach of the curfew rule at the academy. After unsuccessfully attempting to contact Manjunath's parents by phone, the principal decided to sentence Manjunath to 20 hours of peeling potatoes in the academy kitchen to dissuade him from repeating such inappropriate behaviour. When his parents found out that the potato peeling had caused Manjunath to develop unsightly calluses on his hands, they quickly removed their darling son from the academy. The principal of the academy responded by issuing a bill for the remainder of the year's tuition plus an additional fee for boarding. The academy claims that the disciplinary action taken by the principal was within its contractual rights. Manjunath's parents disagree. Given that the agreement makes no specific mention of discipline, how could the principal persuade a court to side with the academy? Explain your reasoning