• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Breach of reward contract

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

bach8351

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

Greed, Inc. advertises in local newspaper offering a reward for “information leading to the arrest and prosecution of persons responsible” for the theft of materials.
Joe Citizen sees the ad and realizes that he knows who the culprits are.
He notifies Greed, Inc. and the State Police.
The State Police make the arrests after a brief investigation of the culprits and actually arrest them while they had the stolen materials in their possession.
The first suspect takes a plea after confessing and is convicted.
The second suspect also takes a plea but several weeks later.
The first suspect retracts his confession, files for an appeal and his conviction is overturned a new trial granted.
In the meantime, Greed, Inc. is refusing to issue the reward until all court proceedings are complete.
Joe Citizen believes that when the ad was placed and he submitted the information (which the detectives admit was the reason the two suspects were caught), the offer to pay money for the information became a contract.
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.”
Joe Citizen believes Greed, Inc is in breach of the contract and would like to sue them.

Thoughts, suggestions, ideas and opinions anyone? Does Joe Citizen have a shot?
 


tranquility

Senior Member
Most times, the point of such exercises is to see your reasoning, not get the "correct" answer. But, if for real, google unilateral contract.
 

bach8351

Junior Member
really

Is this homework or did it actually happen to you? Because it sounds like homework....
Ohhhhh, I see what you mean. You thought I was a student or something. No, this really happened to me.
It's going to be hard to get a lawyer to take this case in my town. They aren't known for their ability or willingness to challenge the status quo.
Verizon offered a reward, I came up with the information and the two were arrested, charged and tried. Verizon's logic of waiting until the appeal is resolved and/or all court proceedings have been completed simply does not make sense to me.
And thanks for giving me the right term to look for. It seems to support my viewpoint.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Verizon's logic of waiting until the appeal is resolved and/or all court proceedings have been completed simply does not make sense to me.
You neglected to put this fact in your original post. This is where your problem lies. Do you think you can provide a timeline of all the events in summary form?

ex.
Jun 12 theft happened.
Jun 14 advertisement for arrest and prosecution.
Jun 15 I called the Po Po and told them it was Yo-Yo who did it.
Jun 16 advertisement for arrest, prosecution and conviction.
Aug 15 people arrested.
Dec 21 people convicted.

etc.
 

latigo

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

Greed, Inc. advertises in local newspaper offering a reward for “information leading to the arrest and prosecution of persons responsible” for the theft of materials.
Joe Citizen sees the ad and realizes that he knows who the culprits are.
He notifies Greed, Inc. and the State Police.
The State Police make the arrests after a brief investigation of the culprits and actually arrest them while they had the stolen materials in their possession.
The first suspect takes a plea after confessing and is convicted.
The second suspect also takes a plea but several weeks later.
The first suspect retracts his confession, files for an appeal and his conviction is overturned a new trial granted.
In the meantime, Greed, Inc. is refusing to issue the reward until all court proceedings are complete.
Joe Citizen believes that when the ad was placed and he submitted the information (which the detectives admit was the reason the two suspects were caught), the offer to pay money for the information became a contract.
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.”
Joe Citizen believes Greed, Inc is in breach of the contract and would like to sue them.

Thoughts, suggestions, ideas and opinions anyone? Does Joe Citizen have a shot?
Let's just say that when someone fulfills the terms and conditions set forth in an offer for the payment of an award the offeror is contractually bound. The law of contracts treats it as an offer and acceptance.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Let's just say that when someone fulfills the terms and conditions set forth in an offer for the payment of an award the offeror is contractually bound. The law of contracts treats it as an offer and acceptance.
I agree as a general proposition, but also believe that the "terms and conditions" can change as long as the offer was not yet "accepted".

I publish a reward in the paper for the return of Fifi on Jan 1. After thinking about it, in the next day's paper I change it to the return of Fifi *alive* on Jan 2. On Jan 3, a person fulfills all the terms and conditions of the Jan 1 unilateral offer and brings me Fifi who is now running solely in the Elysian fields.

The reward seeker will argue he started looking on Jan 1. That was his consideration for the contract that he finally fulfilled on Jan 3.

I, on the other hand, argue that a unilateral contract is "accepted" by performance. Since Fifi was tendered on Jan 3, the offer out there on Jan 1 was revoked by the new offer on Jan 2 so money was not owed.

RS argues he only knew of the Jan 1 offer and that was what he was working under.

What result? That is our problem here too. There is a blend of facts and of law here which does not quite fit the general.
 

bach8351

Junior Member
Timeline

You neglected to put this fact in your original post. This is where your problem lies. Do you think you can provide a timeline of all the events in summary form?

ex.
Jun 12 theft happened.
Jun 14 advertisement for arrest and prosecution.
Jun 15 I called the Po Po and told them it was Yo-Yo who did it.
Jun 16 advertisement for arrest, prosecution and conviction.
Aug 15 people arrested.
Dec 21 people convicted.

etc.
It's going to take me a bit to get exact dates but here is a rough timeline.
The thefts occurred over several months.August, September, October of 2011.
Here's a link to one article containing the offer.
http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/region/cecil_county/copper-thieves-target-verizon-locations
The reward was offered on or about 10/06/2011.
here's a link with Verizon's exact wording.
http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2011/verizon-offers-up-to-10000-1.html
I believe the male was arrested 10/21/2011
I think I submitted the information 10/10/2011
Verizon never published a revised offer. They revised it to me orally when I started calling and asking when they were going to pony up.

Here is an email from Verizon.

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for your assistance thus far in the cable theft matter you describe in your email. It is our understanding that there is a court proceeding scheduled for later this month and that you may be called to testify. If you are called to testify, it is our expectation that you would tell the truth, regardless of whether that testimony would appear to help or hurt the state’s position in the case or Verizon’s interests in the case.

It is Verizon’s practice to not make any decisions on rewards until all court proceedings are concluded. At the end of the proceeding, John Mulvehill, with whom you have had dealings before, will reach out to you.

Thank you,

Donne Masaki
Verizon Corporate Responsibility group
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
If they aren't successfully convicted, then they haven't been found to be responsible.
 

OHRoadwarrior

Senior Member
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.


Content standard for this category: V------ Online will only distribute content that we produce or generate (or others do on our behalf) that is lawful and will not knowingly distribute content that includes material in any of the following excluded content categories:
Content that contains anything that is obscene or indecent, or anything with strong sexual, explicit or erotic themes or that links to such content; or
Content that contains hate speech; or
Content that contains excessive violence; or
Content that contains extreme profanity; or
Content that contains misleading or fraudulent claims; or
Content that promotes or glamorizes alcohol abuse, illegal drug use or use of tobacco products.

Consistent with prevailing online industry standards, content that does not satisfy the above guidelines may be distributed by V----- Online if it is included in the context of artistic, educational, medical, news, scientific, or sports material.
 

OHRoadwarrior

Senior Member
Why would this matter for the OP? :confused:
According to their content policy, they are in charge of the content and will not post any ..."content that contains misleading or fraudulent claims". Therefore, conviction is not a necessary component of the reward offer. Otherwise, they might attempt to claim the offer OP responded to was not the actual agreement, but a report on the agreement. Trust me on this. I just bought a new truck and received an additional $3000 off under similar circumstances. What they agreed to and what they said they meant, were two different things. When I not so gracefully pointed out that changing the price they had already agreed to was fraudulent, they negotiated it.
 
Last edited:

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
According to their content policy, they are in charge of the content and will not post any ..."content that contains misleading or fraudulent claims". Therefore, conviction is not a necessary component of the reward offer.
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.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top