Your answers to these school questions are as follows:
1. Lenor County had been plagued with robberies over a 1 year period. The county sherriff's department had the responsibility for investigating these robberies but failed to come up with any suspects.as a result,the county legislators prepared a resolution offering a $15000 reward leading to the arrest and conviction of any person or persons found guilty for these robberies. This resolution was published daily for 1 week in the counties major newspaper but with no result. They then decided to drop the reward but did not notify the newspaper. Someone came forward and gave information that lead to an arrest. The individual presented the information 3 days after the reward was dropped. County refused to pay. Is the citizen entitled to the reward?
The county made a public offer of a reward by putting an advertisement in the paper that anyone who provided information leading to an arrest would recieve the reward. The advertisement did not contain any notice of expiration on the reward nor did the county inform the public their offer of a reward had been revoked. Given that the individual provided the information only 3 days after the advertisement ran, and the county made no attempt to inform the public the offer was revoked, the citizen should be entitled to the reward. An offer can be said to lapse after "a reasonable time" has passed without acceptance, but a mere 3 days after the offer was last made in the newspaper does not seem to be the passage of a "reasonable time."
2. On june1.essler mailed an offer to Weinberg to sell some household furniture at a special price of 500,stating your acceptance must be received by me no later than june12.the letter was mailed june7.post office had delay and did not deliver till june15. Was weinberg's acceptance binding on essler.
Weinberg's acceptance was not binding and Essler no longer had to sell his furniture to Weinberg at the stated price. When an offer expresses that an acceptance must be received in a certain manner the offeree's failure to deliver the acceptance as instructed in the offer, unless the failure to deliver was caused by the offeror, will mean the acceptance is not binding. The mailbox rule says that an acceptance is binding when dropped in the mail, but, in this case, Essler specifically requried Weinberg to make sure the acceptance was received by Essler on or before June 12, ,and Weinberg did not do that. If Essler had required Weinberg to use the US Mail, then Weinberg could claim the fault for the delay was caused by Essler's choice of delivery, but Essler did not do that and Weinberg bore the risk of this choice of communication.