whether entitled to reward or not

Question

Tam lost his wireless airpods in the campus. He advertised online and near the campus, a reward of $50 to who returns the lost earphones.

Sania found them and went to return it. But next day she saw the advertisement and claim the reward. Advise Tam.

Answer 1

Sania is not entitled to the reward

This is very much contract law 101.

Tam made an offer to the world that was acceptable by performance: return my airpods and we have a contract.

However, Sania did not see the ad and was therefore not returning the AirPods in response to the offer. Acceptance of an offer requires knowledge of the offer. Therefore, there is no contact and Tam is under no obligation to provide Sania with anything, not even a thank you.

Answer 2

Sania is entitled to a reward of 7,50€.

germany

In Germany, to reward honest finders, the finder of an item is entitled to 5% of a lost item's value of up to 500€ under § 971 BGB. Airpods cost about 150 €, so Sania is entitled to a Fider's reward of 7,50 €. Anything more would be at the discretion of Tam, accepting less is at Sania's discretion.

Do note, that denial of the finder's reward at the moment that Sania hands over the item means, that they also deny their entitlement to the reward. In fact, it is upon Sania to demand the reward, and unless they do so, it is presumed that they do not want a finder's reward.

However in making her entitlement to the reward known, Sania may not cross the line into coercion or blackmail (§§ 240, 253 StGB). Should Sania say, without explanation "I demand a payment of 100 € for the airpods", that could be coercion, as she is not entitled to that. If she however says "I am entitled to finder's reward of 7,50 €, and had expenses of 2.50 € to get the phone to you, therefore you owe me 10 €" the picture is different - that is exactly the amount that the law says she would be owed. This is because atop the actual reward Sania can reclaim reasonable fees, such as the bus fare to get the phone to Tam under § 970 BGB. Under § 972 BGB, Sania does not have to relinquish the item till the reward and expenses have been paid but also does not become the owner of the item.

The Fundbüro

To evade a possible claim for "Unterschlagung von Fundsachen" (~conversion by not reporting a found item), the Fundbüro (Found item's office) exists when the owner can't be made out rapidly. Not only does it calculate the required finder's reward, but also handing it over to the office fulfills the requirement to report a found item that is worth more than 10 € under § 965 BGB. It is customary to store the lost items at the Fundbüro, but that is not required.

To gain the item from the Fundbüro, Tam will have to pay any required handling fees to the office but also gets notice of how much he should pay to Sania as well as her contact details. Sania will get contact details of Tam in return, together with a notice that she has a claim to a reward of such value. Should Sania not have given her details, it is presumed that she did not want the finder's reward.

If Sania retained the item, the Fundbüro will inform Tam of the estimated finder's reward and contact details for Sania, so Tam can reclaim the item.

Answer 3

england-and-wales canada

See Williams v Carwardine (1833), 5 Car & P 566, 172 ER 1101, aff'd 4 B & Ad 621, 110 ER 590 (KB).

• Police were investigating a suspected murder and the brother of the deceased publicly distributed a notice offering £20 for "such information as may lead to a discovery of the murder of the said Walter Carwardine."
• Mary Williams gave a statement to police that led to the eventual conviction of William Williams for the murder.
• However, the reason Mary gave the statement was because William severely beat her and "being apprehensive of death, she made a disclosure." The common assumption is that William suspected that Mary knew something of the murder, because she had been deposed for an unsuccessful first prosecution against some other suspects.

The defendant in the contract suit did not want to pay the £20. He argued that Mary did not make the disclosure because of the reward. The trial judge put it to the jury whether Mary was induced by the handbill. They found that "she did not give that information for the sake of the £20 reward, nor in consequence of the handbill, but from stings of conscience." The judge still ordered the £20 to be paid.

On application for a new trial ((1833) 4 B & Ad 621, 110 ER 590 (KB)) the judges noted the finding from the lower court that the plaintiff "was not induced by the offer of the reward, but by other motives." Denman C.J. asked "Was any doubt suggested as to whether the plaintiff knew of the handbill at the time of her making the disclosure?" The answer: "She must have known of it, as it was placarded all over Hereford, the place at which she lived": (1833) 5 C & P.

The judges agreed with the trial judge ((1833) 4 B & Ad 621, 110 ER 590 (KB)):

• Denman C.J.: "The plaintiff, by having given information which led to the conviction of the murderer ... has brought herself within the terms of the advertisement, and therefore is entitled to recover."
• Littledale J.: "The advertisement amounts to a general promise, to give a sum of money to any person who shall give information which might lead to the discovery of the offender. The plaintiff gave that information."
• Parke J.: "There was a contract with any person who performed the condition mentioned in the advertisement."
• Patteson J.: "I am of the same opinion. We cannot go into the plaintiff's motives."

Acceptance does not require subjective knowledge of the offer. "Meeting of the minds" is an objective standard.