Question

Victor robbed safe bank of a significant sum of cash. safe bank offered a reward of $10,000 for anyone who captured or provided information leading to the capture of victor. ted, a police officer in town, promised safe bank officials that he would apprehend victor. while on duty, ted arrested victor at a hamburger joint in town. he found victor based upon a hunch he had after ursula, who dated victor, told him about various places victor enjoyed eating. the bank refused to pay either ursula or ted any of the reward money. in a lawsuit between the bank and ted, regarding the reward funds, who is likely to prevail, and why

Answer 1

Answer:

The answer options for this question are:

A. The bank is likely to prevail because Ted only provided past consideration.

B. The bank is likely to prevail because Ted had a preexisting duty to catch Victor.

C. The bank is likely to prevail because Ted's promise to catch Victor was illusory.

D. Ted is likely to prevail because his promise to catch Victor resulted in a binding bilateral contract.

E. Ted is likely to prevail because an enforceable unilateral contract exists based on his performance.

The correct answer is:

B. The bank is likely to prevail because Ted had a preexisting duty to catch Victor.

Explanation:

In this case there would be a binding bilateral contract that is composed by promises from both sides. the idea in this contract is that both parties accomplish their promised part.

Nevertheless, in Ted's case it is important to take into consideration that more than a promise, it was Ted's duty to apprehend the criminal, just because of the fact that he works as a police officer, and it was his duty and obligation at that time to work and put all his effort to catch the criminal; which leaves the bank to prevail in this case.