In the summer of 2002, after several South Louisiana women had been murdered, a task force was set up to find the killer, and the Baton Rouge Crime Stoppers (BRCS) began publicizing a reward offer in newspapers, television stations, and billboards around the Baton Rouge area, stating “Call today and help make Baton Rouge a safer place for you and your family. 334–STOP or 1–877–723–7867.” A short time later, Lafayette Crime Stoppers (LCS) also publicized a reward offer, stating, “Tips can be submitted 24 hours a day at 232–TIPS or toll free at 1–800–805–TIPS.” Both reward offers included an expiration date of August 1, 2003.

On July 9, 2002, Dianne Alexander was attacked in her home in St. Martin Parish. Her son came home during the attack and chased the attacker away. Ms. Alexander reported the attack to local police, and, later, both Ms. Alexander and her son described the attacker to the St. Martin Sheriff’s Department. The lead investigator on Ms. Alexander’s attack shared information regarding Ms. Alexander’s attack with the Lafayette Sheriff’s Department, which then shared it with the Task Force.

On May 22, 2003, Ms. Alexander was interviewed by an FBI agent assisting the Task Force. Based upon that interview, a composite sketch was drawn and released to the public on May 23, 2003. Investigators believed the composite sketch matched the description of a possible suspect in an investigation being handled by the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office and the Zachary Police Department. On May 25, 2003, Ms. Alexander, in a photo lineup, identified her attacker as the same man suspected in the Zachary investigation.

Around August 14, 2003, Ms. Alexander contacted LCS and sought to collect the advertised award, but was told she was ineligible to receive the award. In 2006, Ms. Alexander and her son sued BRCS and LCS, alleging that the defendants owed them $100,000 and $50,000, respectively, for the information they provided to the defendants. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, asserting there was no genuine issue of material fact because the plaintiffs would be unable to prove that a contract ever existed between the parties. The trial court granted the motions. The plaintiffs appealed, asserting that there is a genuine issue of material fact over whether LCS and BRCS offers contained a requirement that acceptance of the reward must be done through the Crime Stoppers’ tip line. How do you think this case was resolved on appeal?