courts have not addressed whether a contractual relationship exists between a college and its students. However, the Maine Law Court has set forth a number of principles that will guide this Court’s determination of the existence of a contract between Plaintiff and Bowdoin. First, in order for a contract to exist between parties, the “parties must have mutually assented to be bound by all its material terms; the assent must be manifested in the contract, either expressly or impliedly; and the contract must be sufficiently definite to enable the court to determine its exact meaning and fix exactly the legal liabilities of the. parties.” Searles v. Trs. of St. Joseph’s Coll., 695 A.2d 1206, 1211 (1997) (quotation omitted). See also Bragdon v. Shapiro, 146 Me. 83, 77 A.2d 598, 601 (1951) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, “a reservation to either party
holding that terms of agreement regarding bonus too indefinite or meaningless to permit recovery because they did not set forth standard to assist fact finder and left too much discretion to the employer but allowing recovery for value of labor holding that five alleged incidents in four years were too few too separate in time and too mild  to create an abusive working environment holding that the avoidance powers provide for recovery only if the recovery is for the benefit of the estate holding that an employer is only allowed to be reimbursed from a tort recovery to the extent that the recovery duplicates the elements of damage covered by compensation benefits holding that  1964c does not permit recovery for personal injuries