A dog owner owned a mongrel of little monetary value. One day, the dog disappeared, and the owner placed the following advertisement in the newspaper: “I will pay $500 to anyone who returns my dog.” A man found the dog the next day. Knowing to whom the dog belonged, the man took the dog home, intending to return it that night. Before he returned the dog, the man read the dog owner’s advertisement in the newspaper.
Assuming that the dog owner’s advertisement was an offer, the man who found the dog:
A. Can recover $500, as he has accepted the offer.
B. Can recover $500 if he returns the dog to the dog owner.
C. Cannot recover the $500, even if he returns the dog, because he did not have knowledge of the offer when he found the dog.
D. Cannot recover the $500, even if he returns the dog, because he did not have knowledge of the offer when he found the dog.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
B is the correct answer here.
B.
Answer B is correct. The man can recover $500 if he returns the dog. The man has not accepted the offer until he performs the requested act, i.e., returning the dog. Once he returns the dog, he has not only accepted the offer but fully completed his performance. At that point, the dog owner must perform his obligation under the contract to pay the man who found the dog $500.
Answer A is incorrect. It fails to make clear that the man who found the dog must return the dog before he has a right to the money. Finding the dog alone does not entitle the man who found the dog to the reward money. The dog owner has made a unilateral offer, i.e., one that requires acceptance by the doing of an act. The act required for acceptance is the return of the dog. Until the man who found the dog actually returns the dog, he is not entitled to the reward money.
Answer C is incorrect. The finder’s knowledge at the time of finding the dog is not material; only his knowledge at the time of performing the act required for acceptance (i.e., returning the dog) is relevant. Performance of an act requested by an offer made before the offeree has knowledge of the offer does not form a contract; however, where, as here, the offeree has only partially completed performance (finding the dog), completion of the requested performance (returning the dog) with knowledge acts as acceptance. If the man who found the dog had also returned the dog without knowing of the dog owner’s offer of a reward for his return, he would have no contractual claim for the reward money.
Answer D is incorrect. This contract does not fall within the Statute of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds provides that certain contracts are enforceable only if they are evidenced by a written memorandum, signed by the party to be charged. The Statute of Frauds would cover a contract for the sale of goods where the price is $500 or more, but this question does not involve a sale of goods, because the man who found the dog does not have title to the dog. Neither does this transaction come under any other provision of the Statute of Frauds. Therefore, no written signed memorandum is necessary to the dog finder’s recovery.
Hmmm. Well, if the offer was, “whoever ‘finds’ my dog,” I’d go with C/D, because he didn’t know of the offer when he found the dog. But because he hadn’t yet returned the dog (the actual term of the offer), and he learned of the offer before he did so, I think it may be B. I’m just not sure if the fact that he planned to return the dog before reading the offer makes a difference. It’s definitely not A, because this is a unilateral contract and can only be accepted by performance. (I am also tempted to go with B because we literally could not choose two answers on the exam!).
Answer B since he knew of the offer before returning the dog and can only accept the unilateral offer by performing
C and D. The reward is an offer for a unilateral contract. The finder found the dog AND formed the intent to return it prior to learning of the reward. Therefore no act of the finder was intended to manifest his acceptance.
“C/D” The man did not have knowledge of the reward when he found the dog. Therefore, a contract doesn’t exist. He could not accept an offer of a reward he did not have any knowledge about it. It appeared that he completed the performance (by finding the dog and knew the owner of the dog) before he learned about the reward.
Answer – B
B. Wonder if the $500 is in there to mistrigger Statute of Frauds…
I learned a mnemonic for contracts that fall within the Statute of Frauds. I think it was from Barbri (sorry to mention another bar review course on this site lol): M.Y.L.E.G.S. — contracts in anticipation of Marriage; contracts that cannot be performed within a Year; contracts for the sale of Land (and Leases for more than a year); contracts where the Executor (or administrator) of a will agrees to pay the debts of the estate out of his own pockets; contracts for the sale of Goods for $500 or more; and Surety (guarantor) contracts.
And of course there are exceptions that apply, but these are the contracts that at least initially fall under the statute of frauds.
You know, I am so sorry for writing this. It was extremely late when I read this and I was sleepy–I thought you were saying you wondered if this contract triggered the Statute of Frauds lol. Sorry about that.
answer B. modern view is that offeree need only complete performance with knowledge of a reward offer (or public offer of any kind) to earn the reward. Traditional rule is that public offer must have provoked offeree’s performance. Reward offer must be seeking unilateral contract.
b
B.