Summary of Facts
Bart has lost a piece of his personal property and is offering a reward for its return. Bart then does not want to give a reward. Alan has found Bart’s personal property and is demanding a reward as a pre-condition to its return.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether under Oregon law, Alan can insist on the reward as a precondition for the return of Bart’s personal property?
Rule
In MacFarlane v. Bloch, 59 Ore. 1 (Or. 1911), MacFarlane, the plaintiff found a pocket book which held $1000 worth of promissory notes belonging to the defendant, Bloch. MacFarlane demanded a reward in return for the pocketbooks return. The defendant refused to pay any reward and had the plaintiff arrested. The plaintiff then filed a suit against the defendant for the reward and won. The court held that the plaintiff had made a “good faith” attempt to find the true owner in trying to return the pocketbook and therefore was entitled to a reward. The courts indicated that offering a reward becomes a contract and once the condition of the reward is met, then the contract would be considered complete and a reward must be given. The court found that if the plaintiff really found and took possession of the goods and believed they were in fact lost, with a purpose to preserve them and return them to the owner, she was in the condition to claim a reward upon complying with the terms of the contract. There essentially is a lien on the property in exchange for the reward.
In Watts v. Ward, 1 Ore. 86, 88(Or. 1854), the plaintiff had found the defendants horses, Ward. In the meantime the finder of the horses used them as work horses and the horse’s dies as a result. The plaintiff argues that he was entitles to monetary compensation for the expenses he incurred while returning the horses to the defendant. The court found that because a reward was not offered by the