Two ages are in conflict here: the age of grade inflation and the age of entitlement.

The student does not sound like he either paid attention to the professor’s words or studied hard. If he had been in class and had listened, he would have known the quiz counted towards the grade. If he had studied, he would have passed the quiz. So, it is likely he expected the professor to give him a good grade in spite of poor performance because he expected the professor knows the importance of a good grade in Contracts to future employment; therefore, it is quite likely that the student, with a sense of entitlement burning brightly within him, failed to work to meet the professor’s standards.

The professor, in these days of grade inflation, likely gave the student the highest grade he could given low performance (and from the final grade, I would posit) inattendance and lack of study.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the syllabus said the Friday sessions would be optional. It’s not clear if the professor’s oral amendments required attendance at the Friday sessions (which appear to be not part of the official class schedule). If the sessions were optional, it would follow that the quizzes were optional as well. I can see the quizzes being used as extra credit to perhaps raise lower grades, but I don’t see how choosing to not take (a stupid idea unto itself) optional quizzes could be counted against a student’s grade.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the guy’s a whiny baby, and should just STFU and take his licks. Law school, just like life, is hard.