Breach of reward contract

[tranquility]

If I were to be a bit of a textualist, I would note that a promise to pay you "up to" a bazillion dollars would be satisfied if I paid you anything. Maybe, nothing. I would be in violation only if I paid you more.

 

[bach8351]

Conviction

It is perfectly reasonable for the offeror to wait until the party(ies) have been convicted of the crime. If not, then they open themselves up to defamation claims.

They have both been convicted (pleaded down from 42 counts to 4 counts) and sentenced. The male filed for an appeal based on a coerced confession. A judge agreed, overturned his first conviction and set a date for a new trial.

I guess I'm wondering what the definition of "prosecution" is. The operative words in the offer are "of the persons responsible".

One person confessed, was convicted and sentenced. For reasons unknown he has decided to appeal. Possibly he made that decision because the second person got off with considerably less time than he did. The other person confessed, pleaded down, was convicted and sentenced. There are no indications from her that she might appeal and considering the slap on the wrist she received, an appeal is unlikely.

It is unlikely but not impossible for anyone to slip in and claim the reward. I have tons of documentation from people both in law enforcement and Verizon. All agree that the reward is mine and mine alone.

 

[bach8351]

Print what out

I think you need to print this out now, in the event you do need to pursue the reward in court.
It is that sites content policy.

I should print what out? What you just said, this whole thread or what?

 

[bach8351]

I get it

I should print what out? What you just said, this whole thread or what?

Never mind. I get it now. I might as well print it out. I'm printing anything and everything else concerning the case.

 

[justalayman]

The terms of the contract were very simple. Greed, Inc. will pay Joe Citizen $10,000 for “information leading to the arrest and prosecution of the persons responsible” for the crime.
Greed, Inc. is now changing that contract to “information leading to the arrest, prosecution and successful conviction of persons responsible and termination of any and all legal and court proceedings regarding the thefts of materials.”

the term "prosecution" is not the key here but "persons responsible". The terms were never changed so the discussion of altering the terms is irrelevant.

The argument is that until they are determined to be the persons responsible and until they are convicted, that is not proven.

 

[bach8351]

Conviction

the term "prosecution" is not the key here but "persons responsible". The terms were never changed so the discussion of altering the terms is irrelevant.

The argument is that until they are determined to be the persons responsible and until they are convicted, that is not proven.

They have been convicted. One is appealing but the other is not.

 

[justalayman]

They have been convicted. One is appealing but the other is not.

the first one has not been convicted:

The first suspect retracts his confession, files for an appeal and his conviction is overturned a new trial granted.

 

[You Are Guilty]

the first one has not been convicted:

Ah, but the offer does not say payment is contingent of prosecution of ALL persons responsible. In which case the conviction of the one that isn't appealing does seem to fulfill the requirement.

However, as Tranq noted, the "up to" language is a slippery slope too.

 

[bach8351]

Successfully prosecuted and convicted

It is perfectly reasonable for the offeror to wait until the party(ies) have been convicted of the crime. If not, then they open themselves up to defamation claims.

Of course I can understand that before a reward is paid, a conviction would be required even though a legal definition of "prosecute" is "To follow through; to commence and continue an action or judicial proceeding to its ultimate conclusion. To proceed against a defendant by charging that person with a crime and bringing him or her to trial."
The outcome of that trial is immaterial but Verizon did specify "individuals responsible" so that could be debatable I guess.
In any event, there is an individual currently serving her time (six years with three of them suspended) as a result of her conviction.
Verizon's terms did not specify ALL individuals responsible. How in hell do you determine ALL individuals responsible? Let's see now, that would include her mother for not raising her right, her father for not disciplining her, her sixteen year old son for helping her strip the wire, me for lending her the tools before I knew what was going on, the people at the scrap yard for accepting the wire, the installers for hanging the wire so close to the ground...and the list goes on.
I gave them what they asked for and the wire thefts stopped. I fulfilled the terms of the contract and Verizon did not.
I have made an appointment with an attorney but I don't believe I need one just to force Verizon to meet there obligations concerning the base reward. What I do need an attorney for is determining punitive damages. I am of the belief Verizon will continue to conduct their reward plan that way until they have to pay through the nose for doing so.
I think $100,000 PLUS the original $10,000 should get their attention.
Any thoughts anyone. I can't find any guidelines in Maryland's People's law library.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

What I do need an attorney for is determining punitive damages.

Punitive damages are generally not available in a breach of contract action.

 

[bach8351]

Punitive damages

Yes, I can see that it would be difficult to get punitive damages but it does happen when the court is convinced that a deterrent is needed to prevent the defendant from acting that way in the future.

Maryland courts generally consider punitive damages in the
context of nine nonexclusive legal principles articulated by the
Court of Appeals in Bowden v. Caldor, Inc., 710 A.2d 267 (Md.
1998). The factors are not elements set in stone, but rather
“guideposts to assist a court in reviewing an award.” Id. at 41.
The nine Bowden factors are: (1) the defendant’s ability to pay;
(2) the relationship of the award to statutorily imposed criminal
fi nes; (3) the amount of the award in comparison to other fi nal
punitive damage awards in the jurisdiction and, in particular, in
somewhat comparable cases; (4) the gravity of the defendant’s
conduct; (5) the deterrent value of the award both with respect to
the defendant and the general public; (6) whether compensatory
damages, including litigation expenses, suffi ciently compensate
the plaintiff; (7) whether a reasonable relationship exists between
compensatory and punitive damages; (8) whether evidence of
other fi nal and satisfi ed punitive damages awards against the
same defendant for the same conduct should be considered; and
(9) if separate torts are implicated, whether they grew out of the
same occurrence or episode. I

 

[Mass_Shyster]

"It is well settled in this State that there can be no award of punitive damages in a pure action for breach of contract", Siegman v. Equitable Trust Co., 297 A. 2d 758 - Md: Court of Appeals 1972

 

[bach8351]

He said-She said

"It is well settled in this State that there can be no award of punitive damages in a pure action for breach of contract", Siegman v. Equitable Trust Co., 297 A. 2d 758 - Md: Court of Appeals 1972

I guess that is what lawyers get paid for. Coming up with more precedents than the other guy to win their case.


"Under Maryland law, punitive damages are allowable only in a tort action and only when there is
an award of compensatory damages based on that tort. VF Corp. v. Wrexham Aviation Corp., 715
A.2d 188, 192 (Md. 1998). With respect to both intentional and non-intentional torts “... an
award of punitive damages must be based upon actual malice, in the sense of conscious and
deliberate wrongdoing, evil or wrongful motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud.” Montgomery
Ward v. Wilson, 664 A.2d 916, 932 (Md. 1995). While cases of fraud may arise in the
construction context, in order for punitive damages to be awarded for fraud the plaintiff must
14 show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had actual knowledge that his
misrepresentation was false. Bowden v. Caldor, Inc., 710 A.2d 267, 276 (Md. 1998)."

 

[Zigner]

I guess that is what lawyers get paid for. Coming up with more precedents than the other guy to win their case.


"Under Maryland law, punitive damages are allowable only in a tort action and only when there is
an award of compensatory damages based on that tort. VF Corp. v. Wrexham Aviation Corp., 715
A.2d 188, 192 (Md. 1998). With respect to both intentional and non-intentional torts “... an
award of punitive damages must be based upon actual malice, in the sense of conscious and
deliberate wrongdoing, evil or wrongful motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud.” Montgomery
Ward v. Wilson, 664 A.2d 916, 932 (Md. 1995). While cases of fraud may arise in the
construction context, in order for punitive damages to be awarded for fraud the plaintiff must
14 show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had actual knowledge that his
misrepresentation was false. Bowden v. Caldor, Inc., 710 A.2d 267, 276 (Md. 1998)."

Apparently, you don't understand what you just posted.

 

[tranquility]

I agree with Zigner. (And, of course, Stevef.) As a general rule, punitive damages are not allowed in contract law, but torts. Those few cases which do allow for punitive damages in contract often say the behavior was essentially a tort.

There is no way there will be punitive damages here. They did not hurt the OP.