Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
District of Columbia Municipal Court of Appeals - 68 A.2d 233
Tags: Contracts, Rewards, Offers
See also: Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware v. Williams
tl;dr:
A woman unknowingly gives police info for which there is a reward. Once she finds out about the reward, she tries to claim it, but the offeror refuses to pay up.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1949 case Glover v. Jewish War Veterans of the United States, Post No. 58, the D.C. Municipal Court of Appeals confirmed a ruling in favor of the defendant - a non-governmental organization that had offered a reward for information resulting in the arrest and conviction of a local pharmacist's murderers. This case highlights the necessity of knowledge and intent for contract formation.
The court determined that the plaintiff, who provided information to the police leading to the capture of one murderer, was not eligible for the reward since she was unaware of the offer when she performed the act. The court dismissed her claim of accepting the offer through performance, as there was no mutual agreement between both parties. Additionally, the court applied the principle that a reward offer does not apply to cases where the claimant did not volunteer information but only gave it upon questioning by authorities
This case demonstrates that an offeror can limit the scope of an offer by specifying conditions or recipients, and that an offeree cannot accept an offer without knowledge of and intent to accept it. It also reveals that courts will not uphold contracts missing essential components, such as mutual consent or consideration.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The case concerns whether Mary Glover is entitled to a $500 reward offered by a non-governmental organization for providing information leading to the arrest and conviction of a murderer. The trial court ruled against her, stating that for a contract to exist in the context of reward offers, the claimant must have knowledge of the offer and intend to accept it. The court concluded that the law of contracts applies to questions regarding rewards offered by private individuals and organizations. The principle of mutual assent requires both parties to agree to the same terms, and without knowledge of the reward, there is no contract. The Restatement of the Law of Contracts and the majority of cases hold that knowledge of the reward is required for a contract to exist. In this case, the claimant did not volunteer information and did not claim to have knowledge of the reward, making the rule requiring knowledge of the reward particularly applicable. The lower court's decision was correct.
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.