bus115 week 4 discussion

In this scenario, Briana could potentially have a legal claim against the owner of the dog for breach of contract, specifically under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Although Briana did not directly see the reward sign herself, she learned of its contents through Pedro, who had observed the sign in the park. Briana and Pedro had a clear agreement to split the reward if either of them found and returned the dog. This agreement constitutes a contract, even if it was based on secondhand knowledge of the reward sign.

Promissory estoppel may apply here because Briana relied on the promise of the reward in deciding to search for and return the dog. She and Pedro had a mutual understanding and agreement regarding the reward, which influenced Briana’s actions. By finding and returning the dog, Briana fulfilled her part of the agreement, and the owner should be estopped from denying the existence of the reward or reneging on the promise to pay it.

Furthermore, Briana’s actions can be seen as providing consideration for the contract, as she expended time and effort to locate and return the lost dog based on the promise of the reward. Therefore, Briana may have a valid legal claim to enforce the agreement and seek the $750 reward from the owner of the dog.