Question

11-3 Spotlight on crime stoppers - Communications. The Baton Rouge Crime Stoppers (BCS) offered a reward for information about the "South Louisiana Serial Killer." The information was to be provided via a hotline. Dianne Alexander had survived an attack by a person suspected of being the killer. She identified a suspect in a police lineup and later sought to collect the reward. BCS refused to pay because she had not provided information via the hotline. [ Alexander v. Lafayette Crime Stoppers, Inc, 38 So.3d 282 (La.App 3 Dist. 2010)]   

What is the case about? (Answer in a brief concise summary no longer than 5 sentences.)

At what point in the controversy or dispute involved in this case should one of the parties have sought legal advice? (Answer in one sentence.)

What specific help would the party want from the lawyer they consult with? (Answer in one sentence.)

What is the principal reason that you felt that it was important at that point in the controversy or dispute for the party to seek legal advice? (Answer in 2 to 3 sentences.)

If you decided to use legal assistance, how would you go about finding an attorney? (Answer in 2 to 3 sentences.)

What information do you feel the party should provide to the attorney during their first discussion? (List at least seven items of information, each listed in a separately numbered paragraph.

Answer 1

The case is based on contract law. The case is a dispute between Alexander and Lafayette on the understanding whether there was an effective contract between them or not and if the contract was breached. The case also discusses the different ways of offering and accepting a contract.

One of the parties (likely Alexander) should have sought legal counsel immediately after the arrest in May 2003.

Party should sought counsel to make sure that the contract’s offer is still valid and if the acceptance process has been followed till May 2003.

The reason to seek legal advice at this point is to make sure that Alexander has complied with the contract requirement from their end. This is to make sure, that LFC does not have any loopholes that can be used to reject Alexander’s claim.

Since this is a matter of contract law, I would find an attorney who specializes in contract law. This could also be someone involved in business and corporate activities.

Party should provide the lawyer with the timeline and the following points.

Facts: What exactly happened that led to the dispute

Jurisdiction: Legal jurisdiction of LCS and Alexander

Contract offer: What exactly was offered?

Offer details: How was the offer made the available details

Acceptance: How Alexander plans to accept the offer of the contract

Possible dispute: What are problems/disputes Alexander anticipates?

Financial implications: What kind of monetary benefit and loss is involved with the case.

.