6 Slattery an independent licensed polygraph operator was em

6. Slattery, an independent, licensed polygraph operator, was employed by law enforce- ment authorities to question a suspect. During the testing, which was conducted over two days, the suspect confessed to killing a guard in a Wells Fargo robbery, a crime about which the suspect was not being questioned. The suspect was convicted and sentenced for the murder. Slattery claimed a $25,000 reward Wells Fargo had offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or per- sons participating in the shooting. Is Slattery entitled to the reward? 7. Joe was a 48-year-old wealthy businessman when he began dating Celeste, 22. He asked her to move in with him, but she refused, saying she didn\'t want to do it unless they were going to have a long-range, permanent husband/wife type of rela- tionship. She later moved in with him, and they reached an agreement wherein she would prepare meals, manage the home, and arrange for remodeling. Joe earned and managed the investments. A key part of the agreement was to y to have children together. She alleged that they understood that all property acquired would be treated as joint property. They had a son a couple of years ter. The next year they married. Four years later they had twins. Two years later, Celeste filed for divorce and claimed all property should be equitably divided, including Joe\'s property before they cohabited. Joe argued that he should not have any property because a contract between nonmarital partners is invalid if ual acts form part of the consideration, and the promise to bear children neces- the income tr to share sex arily involved sexual intercourse. Will Joe have to divide his property? Explain

Solution

6. No, Slattery is not entitled to the reward.

This is because when Slattery was conducting the investigation and doing the polygraph test he was simply an employee of the law enforcement authorities. As such his actions of interrogation were a part of his official duty. The fact that he gave the information obtained by him during the interrogation to the law enforcement authorities will not constitute any consideration that is important for a contract. In the absence of any consideration the contract is void. Secondly Slattery will not be allowed to recover the reward as it will lead to diluting the integrity of the office of law enforcement.

Thus Slattery is not entitled to the reward.