The paper "What Works for the Officer" is a wonderful example of a case study on the law. The contract created by the Police Commissioner when he offers a $100,000 reward is a unilateral contract. Unlike a bilateral contract, a unilateral contract does not encompass a two-party agreement (Linn 81). The commissioner drafts the contract and presents it already containing the applicable terms and conditions. In this respect, whoever provides the information that leads to the solution of the murder case is not involved in the making of the contract. Mary does not need to testify in order to get the reward money.
According to the Police Commissioner, what is needed is the information that can lead to the arrest and conviction of the offender. Once the arrest is made and the crime against the perpetrator confirmed, then Mary should get the reward money. The only important factor is ensuring that the police have the person they are looking for. Bob can actually claim a portion of the reward money if not all. This is because no exceptions were made by the commissioner detailing police officers who were not eligible for the reward.
However, if Mary can prove foul play by Bob, then the issue can be argued against Bob getting part of or all the reward money. Essentially, he played a critical role in the apprehension of the crime perpetrator. The relevant rule, in this case, is informed by judicial decision(s). In this respect, policy consideration relevant to a case stands by the principles, statutes, or precedents that the judicial system observes relative to the matter at hand (Linn 109). personally, I agree with the policy.
This is because the law should be allowed to take its course.