Illustration 1

thereunder reads:

''A offers a reward for the apprehension and delivery into police custody of a criminal. Before learning of the reward, B arrests the criminal. After learning of the reward, B delivers the criminal into police custody. B is entitled to the reward.''

This illustration represents a total reversal of illustration 1 of the former Restatement.

Although the problem of the timeliness of the offeree's acquisition of knowledge of the offer has most often been litigated in reward cases, it also surfaces in the employment relationship. An employer has developed and announced a program of fringe benefits, and severance pay or bonuses based on longevity. An employee is hired without being told of the existence of the promised benefits. The employee later discovers the existence and details of the promise. All of the employee's time on the job counts toward earning the promised benefits, including the period of time during which the employee was ignorant of the promise.n2

Legal Topics:

For related research and practice materials, see the following legal topics:

Contracts LawPerformancePartial PerformanceGeneral OverviewContracts LawTypes of ContractsUnilateral ContractsRewardsContracts LawFormationAcceptanceMethods of AcceptanceGeneral Overview

FOOTNOTES:

(n1)Footnote 1. Restatement, Contracts, § 53: ''The whole consideration requested by an offer must be given after the offeree knows of the offer.'' ''Illustration 1. A offers a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of a criminal. B, in ignorance of the offer, gives information leading to his arrest and later, with knowledge of the offer and intent to accept it, gives other information necessary for conviction. There is no contract.'' The present writer disagrees with this decision.

In accord with the original Restatement:

Fla. - Slattery v. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp., 366 So.2d 157 (Fla.App.1979) .

Ill. - Williams v. West Chi. St. Ry., 191 Ill. 610, 61 N.E. 456 (1901) ; Price v. City of East Peoria, 154 Ill.App.3d 725, 107 Ill.Dec. 564, 507 N.E.2d 228 (1987) .

N.Y. - Fitch v. Snedaker, 38 N.Y. 248 (1868) ; cf. Greene v. Heinrich, 59 Misc.2d 655, 300 N.Y.S.2d 236 (Civ.Ct.1969) , aff'd, 65 Misc.2d 622, 319 N.Y.S.2d 275 , aff'd, 38 A.D.2d 691, 327 N.Y.S.2d 996 (1971) .

Contra:

Ky. - Coffey v. Commonwealth, 37 S.W. 575, 18 Ky.L.Rep. 646 (1896) .

Mich. - Genesee County v. Pailthorpe, 246 Mich. 356, 224 N.W. 418 (1929) .

Mo. - Smith v. Vernon County, 188 Mo. 501, 87 S.W. 949 (1905) ; Hoggard v. Dickerson, 180 Mo.App. 70, 165 S.W. 1135 (1914) .

(n2)Footnote 2.

Ala. - Henderson Land & Lumber Co. v. Barber, 17 Ala.App. 337, 85 So. 35 (1920) . The employer posted a notice promising a 5% bonus to everyone in its employ who worked four continuous months. Plaintiff was hired after the notice was posted but was unaware of it for some time. He afterwards read the notice and upon completion of four months from the date of his hiring he was held to be entitled to the bonus.

Ohio - Helle v. Landmark, Inc., 15 Ohio App.3d 1, 472 N.E.2d 765 (1984) . The timing of some of the events in this case is somewhat obscure. The employer had printed up a personnel manual the existence of which was not known to the plaintiff employees for some time. It contained generous severance provisions. When it appeared that the plant was scheduled to close down and the employees began to search for other employment, the plaintiff employees were told that they had earned considerable severance pay which they would jeopardize by quitting. Their continued employment was sufficient performance to act as acceptance of the offer which included credits during their entire career with the company and its predecessor. Disclaimers of liability contained in the manual were ineffective because the promises were revealed to them orally.