Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law 9th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

Exercise 26

Alexander v. Lafayette Crime Stoppers, Inc.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third District, 28 So.3d 1253 (2010).
www.la3circuit.org/opinions.htm
FACTS In 2002, several Louisiana women were murdered, and the Multi Agency Homicide Task Force was established to investigate the murders. Investigators believed one individual had committed these murders and referred to this person as the "South Louisiana Serial Killer." In April 2003, the Baton Rouge Crime Stoppers (BRCS) began publicizing a reward offer in newspapers, television stations, and billboards regarding the South Louisiana Serial Killer. A short time later, Lafayette Crime Stoppers (LCS) also publicized a reward offer. Both offers promised to give rewards for information leading to the arrest of the killer, included a telephone number to call with information, and stated that the offers expired on August 1, 2003. Dianne Alexander was attacked in her home, but her son chased the attacker from the property. Thanks to the Alexander's assistance, the suspect-who was also being investigated as the possible serial killer-was subsequently arrested and indicted. On August 14, 2003, when Alexander sought to collect the advertised reward, LCS told her that she was not eligible to receive it. Alexander and her son sued LCS and BRCS in a Louisiana state court to recover the amount of the awards-$100,000 and $50,000, respectively. BRCS and LCS (the defendants) asserted that Alexander and her son (the plaintiffs) had not complied with the "form, terms, or conditions" required by the reward offers because they did not provide information to Crime Stoppers via the tipster hotline before August 1, 2003. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed
ISSUE Did the Alexanders communicate their acceptance of the reward to the offerors before the expiration date?
DECISION No. The Louisiana appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment.
REASON The court reviewed the offers presented in press releases by both crime-stopper organizations and found that the offers were irrevocable because they specified a period of time for acceptance. Such an offer is accepted when acceptance is received by the offeror or someone authorized to receive acceptance on the offeror's behalf. Although Alexander and her son admitted that they had not contacted either crime-stopper organization before August 1, 2003, they argued that they had accepted the organizations' offers by performance when they provided information to law enforcement officials. The court disagreed, however, finding that while the plaintiffs provided information concerning the serial killer to local law enforcement and to the task force, neither of those parties were authorized to receive acceptance. Because the plaintiffs did not notify the offerors of their acceptance of the reward before August 1, the offers had expired.
WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? Suppose that the plaintiffs had learned about the reward offer after the killer had already been arrested and indicted due to their assistance but before the August 1, 2003, deadline. If they had then called in their information on the tip line, would they have been legally entitled to claim the reward in this circumstance? Explain.