Under Oregon Law, Can Alan Insist on the Reward as a Pre-Condition for the Return of the Object?

To: Dede Sandler

From: Sally Duran-Juarez

Date: Jan. 1, 2016

Re: Alan v. Bart

                                        Memorandum

Facts

Alan and Bart live in the city of Oregon. Bart had lost an item that Alan found. Bart offered an award but didn’t want to give the reward, and insisted that Alan return the item.

Issue

Under Oregon law, can Alan insist on the reward as a pre-condition for the return of the object?

Rule

In MacFarlane v. Bloch, 59 ore. 1 (or. 1911) the plaintiff found the pocketbook and was trying to locate the owner. The defendant offered an award for the pocketbook, and then the plaintiff finally got ahold of the defendant asking for the reward and was refused the reward. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff that the award was made after the book was found. The court found that the plaintiff was able to keep the pocketbook until the reward was paid.

In MacFarlane v. Bloch, 59 ore. 1 (or. 1911) the court stated “ to entitle the plaintiff to a reward for finding the lost pocketbook it was immaterial that she found the book before the offer was made, the reward not being for the finding but for the return of the book.

In Watts v. Ward, 1 ore. 86 (or. 1854) it states that the finder of lost property is not entitled to a reward for finding it if there be no promise of such reward by the owner.

Analysis

In MacFarlane she had returned the property that was found to claim her reward, not for the fact that it was found. Therefore, Bart needs to give Alan the reward for returning his property not for finding the property. In order for one to receive the award they have to return it in good faith. According to MacFarlane, Alan can hold the lost property til Bart gives him the award.