Question

Describe how (or if) the contracts were formed and the terms of the contracts. What were the parties expectation interests? What is your legal analysis and what would be the conclusion? DO NOT simply say "So and so is entitled to compensatory damages". No credit will be given for "It would be the right thing" or anything else along those lines. I am not interested in your personal opinion or what you believe would be morally or ethically correct. Your answer should be based on the law and the information and the preceding chapters, not morals or ethics. For this case, if you determine that one party should win, I want a full explanation as to why. I also want a full explanation as to why the other party should not win. I am not concerned so much with whether or not you come up with the right conclusion, but with your argument and explanation.  

1. Jones paid Sullivan, the chief of the Addison Police Separtment, $6,400 in excahnage for Sullivan's cooperation in allowing Jones and others to bring marijuana by airplane into the Addison sirport without police invervention. Instead of performing the requested service, Sullivan arrested Jones. The $6,400 was turned over to the district attorney's office and was introduced into evidence in the subsequent trial in which Jones was tried for and convicted of bribery. After his conviction, Jones assigned his alleged claim to the $6,400 to Melvyn Bruder. Based on the assignment, Bruder brought suit against the state of Taxes to obtain possession of the money.

Answer 1

From the above facts on the case, it can be clearly stated that the money was used in bribing the police officer to bring out the marijuana from the airport illegally. The case tends to the disposition of money that was used in an attempt to bribe a police officer. The expectation of the briber is to get off from the airport by bribing the police officer. Police officer had made a counter attack by arresting the briber and handling over the money to the district attorney's office as a evidence of the bribery. My affirmation is that the briber's assignee has no claim to the money.

Well, as per the contract of law, no legal right arises out of an unlawful act; and no action can be maintained upon a claim arising out of or based upon an illegal act, if plaintiff must rely in any way upon the illegal transaction to make out or establish his case. Therefore, briber's assignee (Bruder) has no claim to the money.