So by delaying enforcement, or notice of intent to enforce, one party can escape any chance of being forced to perform under the contract. The other party has no such option.
It would seem that for actions against students who never actually attend to be enforceable, there would at least be some sort of notice required, along the lines of "hey, you're still on the hook for this tuition no matter what, so here's your last chance to actually have the kid show up".
There might be some kind of immunity for the government in this case, but if it was a private institution that promised the tuition money, then she would most likely have a valid case against them if she met all of the conditions to receive the promised money.
It's called promisory estoppel:
> If someone took action based on a promise and suffered a loss due to that reliance, they might have a legal claim under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. This allows a person to enforce a promise even without a formal contract, provided certain conditions are met, such as reasonable reliance and resulting harm.
- quote is from AI
