To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library





3. On June 1, after arson fires had damaged several city buildings, the City Council of the city of Metro voted to offer a reward to aid an apprehension of the arsonists. On June 2, by order of the City Council, signs were posted in various locations throughout the city. The posters identified the buildings which had been burned, and stated: “$1,000 REWARD is hereby offered by the City of Metro to any person furnishing information leading to the conviction of persons responsible for setting fire to said buildings.” Curran, a police officer employed by the City of Metro saw the posters on June 5, and resolved to make a special effort to catch the arsonists. Although he was not officially assigned to the case, he notified his fellow police officers and his usual underworld informants that he was especially interested in the case. As a result, Marino, a police officer, and Pidgeon, an underworld informant, passed information to Curran which they thought might relate to the arson crimes. The tip which Curran received from Marino proved to be of no assistance, but that which he received from Pidgeon led him to conduct a further investigation. His efforts eventually resulted in the arrest of two men who pleaded guilty to setting fires in public buildings. Curran demanded that the City Council pay him $1,000 but the council refused.

If Curran institutes a lawsuit against the City of Metro for the $1,000 reward offered in the signs posted on June 2, which of the following would be the City’s most effective argument in defense?

(A) The reward should go to Pidgeon, since it was his information which eventually led to the arrest of the arsonists.

(B) The reward was not accepted, since the arsonists were not convicted but
pleaded guilty.

(C) Curran gave no consideration for the City’s promise to pay a reward, since he was already obligated to attempt the apprehension of the arsonists.

(D) There was no enforceable promise by the City, since the offer was for a gratuitous cash award.

4. X-tendo contracted to add a room to Homer’s house for $3,000, with the understanding that the materials used by X-tendo were to be included in that price. The day before work was to begin, Homer wired X-tendo, “The deal is off. Do not begin work, Homer.” X-tendo subsequently asserted a claim against Homer for breach of contract. Homer raised non-compliance with the Statute of Frauds as a defense. Which of the following statements is most correct about the application of the Statute of Frauds to the contract between Homer and X-tendo?

I. The contract was required to be in writing if the materials which would have been required had a price in excess of $500.

II. The contract was required to be in writing if, at the time of contracting, the parties intended that the materials required would have a price in excess of $500.

(A) I only.

(B) II only.

(C) I and II.

(D) Neither I, nor II.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following