Premium Essay

Denney vs Reppert

In:

Submitted By correctshoe
Words 619
Pages 3
12-2 Denney vs. Reppert
Facts:
In June 1963, three armed men robbed The First State Bank in Eubank Kentucky. Three police officers caught the bank robbers and recovered the stolen money. The Kentucky Bankers Association offered a reward of 500 dollar s reward for the conviction of each robber, thus a total of 1500 dollars. Several parties asked the Bankers Association for the reward. These parties included the arresting officers, the bank employees, and a group of individuals that had provided information that assisted the officers in the arrest.

Issue:
Who is eligible for the reward?

Decision:
The trial court found that only one individual for the reward (Reppert)

Rationale:
Bank employees were not entitled to a reward because they were acting within the scope of their employment and performed a duty owed to the bank and the public. Similarly the other 2 police officers were not entitled because it was their duty to apprehend the criminals. Reppert on the other hand, was a sheriff’s deputy in Rock Castle County and the arrest took place in Pulaski County. Therefore he was not in the jurisdiction and under no duty or obligation to the public.

Rule: “When a reward is offered to the general public for the performance of some specified act, such reward may be claimed by any person who performs such act, is the exception of agents, employees, and public officials within the scope of their employment or official duties.”

17-4 Northern Corp. v. Chugach Electrical Association

Facts:
Northern entered into a contract with Chugach to repair and upgrade the upstream face of Cooper Lake Dam in August 1966. To contract required Northern to pick up rock from a quarry at the opposite end of the lake, and then transport the rock across the frozen lake to the dam during the winter months. Northern cleared the road but water rose to a depth deemed

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Business Law Ch11-15

...Stephanie Van Horn Case 11-4 Dorris Reed, the plaintiff, purchased a home from Robert King. Robert King and his real estate agent did not tell Dorris Reed that a woman and her four children were murdered 10 years ago, because the murder would affect the value of the home. Dorris Reed, however, did find out about the murder from a neighbor and sued Robert King and his real estate agent for rescission and damages. Dorris Reed paid $76,000 for the home but the value of the house, once the murder was taken into consideration, was only worth $65,000. Due to Dorris Reed failing to state a cause of action, the trial court sided with Robert King and his real estate agent. Dorris Reed appealed. Fraud is being looked at in the case of Reed vs. King. There are five elements to proving fraud, 1) material misrepresentation, 2) facts/knowledge, 3) intent, 4) reliance, and 5) damage (quoted from text book). Robert King and his real estate agent hid the first and second element of fraud. They knew about the murders and did not present Dorris Reed with this information, which would have affected Dorris Reed decision to buy the house. However, when dealing with the selling of real property, the question of materially is the main issue. Materiality is based on three conditions, 1) the gravity of the harm inflicted by nondisclosure, 2) the fairness of imposing a duty of discovery on the buyer as an alternative to compelling disclosure, and 3) the impact on the stability of contracts if rescission...

Words: 1737 - Pages: 7