6. The court in this case ruled in DePretis's favor under a [a negligence:l promissory estoppel I strict liabiltylr promissory enrichment 1' contract ! illegal] theoryr and awarded him his reward money. Alternatively, DePretie could have also tried to recover under a theory of [a negligencelr promissory estoppel I strict liability f promissory enrichment I contract I illegal] a. b. QUESTION 7 Assume Avis was indeed arrested based on DePretis's detective work and the murder victim's wife offered to pay DePretis $1,000 in consideration of all his hard work as a way to thank him. If DePretis accepts her offer but then she changes her mind. DePretis v have a viable breach of contract claim because his investigative work we J will will not past consideration paid for by someone else 10 Pint5 Save Answer the reason for the arrest 2 The state of Connecticut offered a $20,000 reward to anyone giving information leading to the arrest and conviction of the individual responsible for the murder of a man who was killed during the course of a robbery. Robert DePretis, a private investigator hired by an attorneyJoseph Gallicchiorepresenting a codefendant in the case, obtained a written and signed confession from James Avis, in which Avis admitted responsibility for the murder, and delivered the confession to the state police. This information eventually led to Avis's arrest, and Avis was later convicted for the crime. When DePretis tried to obtain the reward money, the state claimed, among other things, that DePretis was not eligible to collect the reward because, as Gallicchio's private investigator, he had a preexisting duty to investigate and report information relating to the crime. DePretis argued that although he commenced his activity in this matter as a result of his relationship with the attorney, he had no dutyas a police officer would to continue his investigations. [State v. Avis]