Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

The decision in Fitch v Snedaker contradicted with the judgment of the case of Gibbons v Proctor

even though the facts of both cases are similar.

In consequence of the murder of a woman in the county of Wayne, on the 25th September,
1859, the Defendant offered a reward for information leading to the apprehension and
conviction of the murderers associated in a crime. The first plaintiff provided the information
on the 11th of September concerning the murder before the offer was published to the public
by the Defendant. The Plaintiff admitted to the judge during the trial that he gave the
information without having the knowledge of the offer given by the sheriff (defendant) and
did it without reference to any reward.

The defendant claimed that he did it for the public good. For this gratuitous service to the
state, the patriot (defendant) then claim the benefit of the reward.

The judge Woodruff. J dismissed the complaint and held that the plaintiff was not entitled for
the reward since he had no knowledge about the offer before giving the information leading
to the apprehension and conviction of the person or persons guilty of the murder.

In the judgement, Woodruff. J stated that

To the existence of a contract there must be mutual assent, or in another form offer and
consent to the offer. The motive inducing consent may be immaterial, but the consent is vital.
Without that there is no contract. How then can there be consent or assent to that of which the
party has never heard? On the 15th day of October, 1859, the murderer, Fee, had, in
consequence of information given by the plaintiffs, been apprehended and lodged in jail. But
the plaintiffs did not, in giving that information, manifest any assent to the defendant's offer,
nor act in any sense in reliance thereon, they did not know of its existence. The information
was voluntary, and in every sense (material to this case) gratuitous. The offer could only
operate upon the plaintiffs after they heard of it. It was prospective to those who will, in the
future, give information, etc.

An offer cannot become a contract unless acted upon or assented to.

S-ar putea să vă placă și