tranquility
Senior Member
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.
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.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.
I should print what out? What you just said, this whole thread or what?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.
Never mind. I get it now. I might as well print it out. I'm printing anything and everything else concerning the case.I should print what out? What you just said, this whole thread or what?
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 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.”
They have been convicted. One is appealing but the other is not.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.
the first one has not been convicted:They have been convicted. One is appealing but the other is not.
The first suspect retracts his confession, files for an appeal and his conviction is overturned a new trial granted.
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.the first one has not been convicted:
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."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.
Punitive damages are generally not available in a breach of contract action.What I do need an attorney for is determining punitive damages.
I guess that is what lawyers get paid for. Coming up with more precedents than the other guy to win their case."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
Apparently, you don't understand what you just posted.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)."