28. Would the private detective be likely to prevail in a breach of contract action against the authorities?

A fugitive was wanted for murder. The authorities offered the following reward: «$20,000 to anyone who provides information leading to the arrest and conviction of this fugitive.» A private detective knew of the reward, located the fugitive, and brought him to the authorities, who arrested him. The authorities then determined that while the fugitive had, in fact, committed the crime, he had been directed to commit the crime by his boss. The authorities and the fugitive then agreed that in exchange for the fugitive's testimony against his boss, all charges against the fugitive would be dropped. The fugitive testified and was released. The authorities refused to pay the reward to the private detective on the ground that the fugitive was never convicted.

No, because the private detective failed to notify the authorities that he had accepted the reward offer
No, because the express conditions set out in the reward offer were not met
Yes, because the authorities’ agreement with the fugitive was against public policy
Yes, because the authorities themselves prevented the conviction of the fugitive

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

D is correct. A performance that is subject to an express condition cannot become due unless the condition occurs or its nonoccurrence is excused. The detective's entitlement to the reward was subject to two conditions: the arrest and conviction of the fugitive. The first, the arrest, was satisfied when the detective delivered the fugitive to the authorities. The second, the conviction, did not occur. Its nonoccurrence is excused, however, under the doctrine of prevention, which requires that a party refrain from conduct that prevents or hinders the occurrence of a condition. Here, the authorities hindered the occurrence of the second condition by negotiating a deal with the fugitive and dropping the charges against him.

A is incorrect. In an offer for a unilateral contract, an offeree who accepts by rendering the requested performance is required to give notice only if the offeree has reason to know that the offeror would not learn of the requested performance with reasonable certainty and promptness. Such is not the case here since the offeror learned of the performance when the detective took the fugitive to the authorities.

B is incorrect. The general rule is that a party's performance does not become due until all express conditions to it have occurred or are excused. In this case, the detective's entitlement to the reward was subject to two conditions—the arrest and the conviction of the fugitive. The failure of the latter condition—conviction—is excused under the doctrine of prevention, which requires that a party refrain from conduct that prevents or hinders the occurrence of a condition, because the authorities themselves prevented the fugitive's conviction from occurring.

C is incorrect. This answer is nonresponsive because it relates to the enforceability of the agreement between the fugitive and the authorities rather than the enforcement of the purported contract between the authorities and the detective. The dispositive issue is the effect of the nonoccurrence of an express condition. In this case, the detective's entitlement to the award was subject to two conditions: the arrest and conviction of the fugitive. The failure of the latter condition—conviction—is excused under the doctrine of prevention, which requires that a party refrain from conduct that prevents or hinders the occurrence of a condition, because the authorities themselves prevented the fugitive's conviction from occurring.

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

28. Would the private detective be likely to prevail in a breach of contract action against the authorities?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired