-6

This happened less than 5 days ago.

Someone stole a $90,000 truck about 2 weeks ago (according to the Facebook post) from another state. Another person came to me and Person B, wanting to sell a truck. I looked at the truck, got inside, and found a license, which I pocketed. I asked them to give me a little bit of time and I would see who I could contact that might be interested. Person B comes to me hours later, having seen and recognized the truck on Facebook.

We reached out to the missing-truck Facebook poster (who was the truck's owner). They had a $6000 reward posted for the return of the truck. We knew where the seller was staying at; the truck wouldn't be far. The owner had a spare key. We let him know where the truck was parked and he said he would meet us at a nearby diner for the reward money. He recovered his truck, deleted the post and has skipped out on us. Are we entitled to it, and if so, what do I do?

Community
  • 1
KKilla Johnson
  • 1
  • 1

3 Answers3

3

Yes, you are entitled to the reward

The offering of a reward creates a unilateral contract offer which you accepted when, having knowledge of the offer, you fulfilled its terms. This was decided in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. back in 1892.

What do you do?

Hire a lawyer.

Dale M
  • 237,717
  • 18
  • 273
  • 546
1

In the entitled reward is 2725 $

Assuming the truck's value is exactly 90 000 $, then the reward is to follow the formula of § 971 BGB: 5 % for the first 500 $ and for the rest of the value 3 %. So the math comes out to 500 $*5 %+89500 $*3 % = 25 $+2700 $ = 2725 $. Anything more can not be recovered.

See also this question: whether entitled to reward or not

Trish
  • 50,532
  • 3
  • 101
  • 209
-1

I think realistically, such rewards are best seen as binding in honour only.

From a legal perspective, the question would be whether there was offer, acceptance, and performance.

Enforceability might come down to exactly how the reward offer was worded, what you discussed, what you did, and what anyone else might have done.

Unlike Carbolic Smoke Ball (mentioned by @DaleM), which was about a commercial advertisement generating profit for cynical peddlers of quack remedies, this is a case of a victim of a crime acting in a personal capacity to recover stolen property.

The courts might not as readily accept that the reward offer created legally enforceable relations, or that there is any principle benefitted by holding victims of crime to their reward offers in the same way there is a benefit to holding commercial peddlers to their claims.

Personally from what I'm reading, I'm not only suspecting that you might have had some kind of associate connection to the crook who actually stole the vehicle (how many people would pick up a driving licence in a car they're viewing and just pocket it?), but that a $6,000 reward is not quantum meruit for your apparent exertion - it might have been more proportionate and honourable to ask for the owner to pay for a slap-up meal in the diner in exchange for information, rather than the $6,000.

If there's one person you're not going to pay the reward to - come what may, and in the teeth of any coercion or threats - it is the person who stole the vehicle or anyone you think are connected to him (even if only peripherally).

I might be completely wrong, but I mention this logic because it quite possibly explains what the owner might also suspect, and therefore what his attitude will be to ever providing the reward money, and what kind of sympathy a judge may have to a claim.

I'd personally suggest just let the matter be.

Steve
  • 3,383
  • 9
  • 17