Our cafeteria at school is not terribly large. It's got room enough for quite a few people, but it's still a room. I was in there yesterday and there was a group of students about 7 feet away from me having a conversation. While I was busy reading for class, these folks were sufficiently loud enough that I couldn't help but overhear their conversation. One of the students was apparently complaining because one of his professors had commented on how she might drop a student because every time she tried to call on him, he wasn't in class. You see, our school has an attendance policy based on the premise that the ABA requires a law student attend at least 80% of the class days in a semester in order to take the final. Usually the professor will pass around the roll sheet so that everyone can sign, but this professor at the beginning of the semester said that she would not take roll. The guy speaking then said that the professor had better not try to drop him because he relied on her promise not to take roll, and if he were dropped for missing too much class, he had relied on her representation to his detriment, therefore she "couldn't" drop him.
You see, he's wrong. In order to have a contract, which is what he was suggesting she would be breaching, there must be a bargained-for exchange. There was nothing given on his part, except, perhaps the promise that he would exercise self-governance and attend at least 80% of the classes in exchange for her not passing the role. If that's the case, then by not attending 80% of the classes, he has breached his promise as well. Additionally, for there to be a breach in this situation, there must be detrimental reliance - the guy must have relied on the professor's promise and that promise must be the cause of his harm. Again, if he's dropped for missing too many classes, the harm is not that he relied on the professor's promise, it's that he didn't fulfil his obligation as a student. He started from a faulty premise and reached an incorrect result.
What's really going on is he's proactively trying to deflect blame for a potential harm that will likely never come to fruition. He's seeing that, in theory, he might be dropped from a class. Rather than accept that it would be his own fault for not attending class, he's trying to foist the responsibility for his actions on someone else. I know that's exactly what I look for in a lawyer.