Slattery v. Wells Fargo Facts: D offered reward for information leading to the arrest and the conviction of person involved in shooting of an armored transport officer. The P was hired to do polygraph work on suspects in the crime. His polygraph test proved valuable in finding the suspected killers. The P now sues for eth reward money offered by the D Issue: Did the P duty or obligation prevent if form recovering the reward? Did the P have a duty of care? Holding: Yes, Reasoning: the Trial court found that he did not meet the terms of the offer. He had not been able to recover the property, therefore he did not complete the offer. The Federal court came to the same conclusion but by different means. They asserted that the P was hired by the police department and was under a duty to give the information. It was his job. He was bound by another duty to give the information. Secondly, he only knew about the reward after the second day of interrogation. The law is settled that in order to accept a reward the offeree must know about the offer in advance. Betterton v. First Interstate Bank of Arizona Facts: P received a loan form the bank to get a truck and trailer. He had trouble making payments. - Jan 1983 Stiles made a revised agreement P did not meet the terms - Sept. 1983 Stiles ordered a repossession of the truck. - Feb. 15, 1984 Stiles and P met to make additional agreement. Stiles requested full payment. P said truck was in eth shop bu that he could bring payment up to date and have employer pull funds from check to put towards loan monthly. They agreed and repossession was halted. - Stiles did not tell P of repossession and did not inform the repo man of new deal. - March 1984, P was indiced to leave truck and it was repossessed. District court granted summary judgment to P because they thought Stiles promise was not supported by consideration. Issues: was there consideration by Stiles or was he under a pre-existing duty? Holding: Yes, there was consideration. Reasoning: The P did have consideration. it was argued that the P had a duty or a pre exitsing duty to pay and this did not change. They said that there could be no consideration if he already had to do something. The court ruled that this was wrong. The P made other arrangements with his broker that were additional that changed the agreement. He was not obligated to make arrangements with his broker.