MEMORANDA To: Reader

From: Jodi Barnes

Date: December 28th, 2011

Re:

Alan v. Bart (Return of the lost object)

Summary: In this case Bart who lives in Boring, Oregon loses his object, Alan who also lives in Boring, Oregon finds Barts object. Bart offers a reward for his lost object after the object is found. In Contract law a reward offer is binding. In Property law Alan has a duty to try and find the rightful owner of a lost object and return it to the rightful owner. Issue: Is Alan entitled to collect a reward before he returns Barts object? Rule: MacFarlane v. Bloch, 59 Ore. 1 (Or. 1911) In this case one party found a pocketbook with a value of more than $1,000.00 in value. The finder put out an ad in the daily press under the lost and found section. The finder also had someone try and call the owner of the pocketbook. The owner put out an ad for a reward for $100.00 for his lost pocketbook. The founder answered the as and tried to collect the reward, the agent for the owner said they had to return the pocketbook or they would be arrested for larceny. The finder returned the pocketbook and sued for the reward that was offered. It was stated in this case that there is not liability upon an offer of a reward to anyone who performs some specific act until the act stipulated has been performed It was also stated that the return of the property completed the contract and the owner was liable to offer reward. When the reward was offered the finder had a lien for the payment of it. It did not matter if the property was found first or if the reward was advertised first. The reward was for the return of the object and not for the actual finding of the object. In this case the owner was obligated to pay the finder the $100.00 reward that was advertised. Watts v. Ward, 1 Ore. 86 (Or. 1854) In this case a party found horses that belonged to another party. The finders notified the true owner and used the horses for personal use while trying to return the horses to the true owner. While trying to return the horses and still continue using them to their benefit the

horses both died. The finders believed they still deserved a fee but the owner thought that by the finders using the horses for personal use and by the true owner not offering a reward nothing should be granted to the finder and the true owner should be awarded the value of the horses that died in the hands of the finders. It was stated in this case in common law the finding of lost property is not entitled to a reward for finding it if there was no promise of a reward by the owner. It was also stated that where a reward is offered for lost property, the finder when he complies with the terms of the offer has the right to retain the property in his hands until the promised reward is paid in full to him. Persons are apt to offer a reward if they wish to pay for the finding of lost property. In this case since no reward was ever promised no reward was to be given. Also since the finders used the owners horses for their personal use they were to be held responsible for health of the horses and since they died the finders were to give the owner of the horses the true value of the property in this case the true value of the horses. Analyze: Just like in the case MacFarlane v. Bloch since the owner put out a reward even if it was before the finder found the property the reward was still to be given. Since the finder of the property made reasonable effort in finding the true owner and did not use the property to their own use they would be entitled to the reward. Just like in our case with Alan and Bart since Alan did his duty in returning the object that part of the contract was finished and he would be entitled the reward that was advertised. In the case of Watts v. Ward it clearly states that if a owner offers a reward for lost property that the finder has the right to keep it until the owner pays the reward to him. In our case it would not be larceny if Alan kept the object until he was paid his reward. Bart is still obligated to pay because he was not forced to put out a reward. Bart posting a reward was voluntary. The moment that Bart put out a reward he would be bound to pay for the return of his object. Just like in the Watts case he would not be able to have his object returned until he paid the reward. Conclusion: Based on the cases here as long as Alan doesnt treat Barts object as if it was his own and makes a reasonable attempt to find the true owner in this case Bart he will be awarded the reward that Bart has advertised. Alan returning the lost object finishes the contract and he will be granted the reward.