Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Court of Appeals of Georgia - 139 Ga. App. 302
tl;dr:
A company posted a $5,000 reward for info about someone who had been stealing from them. A supervisor at the company provided the requested info, but the company refused to give him the reward.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the case of Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware v. Williams (1976), the Georgia Court of Appeals supported a jury's decision in favor of Williams, a supervisor who claimed a reward from his employer for providing information leading to the arrest and conviction of someone stealing from the company. This case is important because it demonstrates contract formation and interpretation principles.
The court ruled that the reward poster was a valid offer and Williams' act of sharing information about a theft was a valid acceptance. The employer's arguments that Williams did not rely on the offer or had a preexisting duty to report thefts were rejected. The court decided that the employer could not avoid its responsibility by using technicalities after benefiting from Williams' actions.
Additionally, the court applied the rule that a contract should be interpreted against the party who drafted it if its meaning is unclear. This case highlights that an offer can be made to a general or specific group of people and that acceptance can be made by performing the requested act without communicating it to the person making the offer. The case also shows that courts will enforce contracts based on their plain meaning and will not allow parties to evade their obligations by raising defenses that conflict with their actions or the contract's purpose.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The case involves an employee suing their employer to recover a reward offered for providing information leading to the arrest and conviction of a thief stealing from the employer. The court ruled that the reward offer was not limited to a particular class of persons and that the general wording of the offer suggests that it was directed to all employees, including supervisors. The court held that the terms of the contract should be given a construction which will advance its beneficial purpose. The court found that the plaintiff-employee did not rely on the reward offer at the time he performed the acts necessary to observe and detect the thief. The defendant-employer cannot assert the technicality of requiring absolute and exclusive reliance on the offer at the time of acceptance, as they have already received the benefit of the plaintiff's acceptance.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.