Jackson v. Goodman

The facts are as stated by the dissent. We find that the trial court improperly granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was sufficient evidence to present jury questions concerning the existence of a reward1 and the presence of either inherent authority or ratification.

The law governing rewards and the rules defining implied authority are straightforward. It is difficult, however, to apply the precedent governing both areas to the same, unique set of facts. In general, any individual with the authority to make a contract may offer a reward and be bound by that offer. 67…