Question

Jen is jogging in a park when she finds a stray dog. She puts up signs looking for the dog’s owner. Mark notices the sign while out looking for his missing dog and calls Jen. When Mark picks up his dog from Jen, he offers her $200 for finding his dog and keeping the dog safe. Jen turns down the money. Three days later, Jen’s car breaks down and the repairs will be costly. Jen calls Mark and request the $200 he had offered. Mark refuses to pay the money. Jen sues for breach of contract. How should the court rule?

Answer 1

The situation can be understood in a systematic manner.

1.Jen found the dog while jogging and then put up a sign board to draw attention of the dog's owner.

Analysis: This act of Jen is purely voluntary and she didn't even had the intention of getting rewarded for the act. This can be concluded because Jen didn't mention any conditions in the sign board.

2.Mark noticed the signboard and picked his missing dog. He even offered $200 as a token of appreciation for Jen but she decilned the offer.

Analysis: Offering $200 by Mark to Jen was a voluntary act and not out of any obligation. At the same time, Jen declined the offer herself. Her decision was not influenced by outside interference.

3.Three days later, Jen's car breaks down and the expenses are costly. She approached Mark for that $200 he had offered earlier. Mark refused this time.

Analysis: Mark has all the righ to refuse because Jen's requirement now has no corelation with Mark's offer three days earlier. Whether he offers financial assistance is purely voluntary. He is not bound by an obligation as per law.

4.Jen sues for breach of contract.

Analysis: The Court will dismiss the case as there is no case in the first place. Whatever has conspired between Jen and Mark was voluntary and in an inflormal setting. There is no offical contract in place or signed. Hence, court will not entertain Jen's case.