R v Clarke [1927] 40 CLR 227

KEY POINTS

• Acceptance must be based on the offer and should be in response to it. For acceptance to be valid and enforceable, there must be a clear knowledge of the existence of the offer. 

• Although the performance of an act (or acts) stated in an offer as constituting acceptance is assumed to occur in response to an offer, this assumption can be challenged based on certain circumstances.

FACTS

• The Western Australian government (Crown) published a notice promising a reward of £1000 to anyone who can provide information on the murderers who killed two police officers. In May, Clarke became aware of this offer of reward. 

• The Crown was offering the reward in exchange for information leading to the conviction of the murders. Clarke, who was suspected of the murder and was detained in connection with it, provided information that led to the arrest of the murderers (in June). He then attempted to claim the reward.

• Clarke confessed that when he submitted the information, he had no intention of collecting the reward and merely wanted to reduce his own sentence. In other words, he was acting in response to the criminal charge against himself, rather than in response to a general community request for information against another person.

• The contention here was whether Clarke disclosing the information can be construed as acceptance of the offer by the Crown.  

COMMENTARY

• In this case, there was no contract since there was no agreement between the parties, and there was no contract because the petitioner did not comply with the terms of the government's proclamation and thus is not entitled to the award. 

• The Court determined that Clarke was acting to gain his own freedom when he provided the information that led to the conviction of others, therefore the petitioner did not accept the contract since the information provided by the petitioner had nothing to do with the reason for obtaining the reward. Mere disclosure of information by Clarke did not signify that he had accepted the Crown's offer.

• It is basic law that for two parties to form a contract, one party must make an offer, the other party must accept that offer, and the one making the offer must be notified of the acceptance. It has been decided, however, that in the case of an offer of a reward for information to be supplied or upon the performance of a specified condition, the acceptance of the offer by giving the information or performing the specified condition acts as a notification of acceptance and creates a valid contract. However, merely providing the needed information does not always constitute an acceptance of the offer. In this scenario, the individual providing the information, initially, had no intention to accept the offer. 

• An intention to accept the offer is assumed from the giving of the required information when knowledge of the offer is shown; however, in the present case, this assumption is challenged by the evidence of the petitioner himself, who stated that when he gave the information, he had no intention of claiming the reward.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• The police had charged Clarke (C) with murder and offered a reward to anyone who could supply information on the case.

• C, out of a desire to absolve himself and having forgotten about the offer of a reward, supplied information that showed that someone else had committed the murders.

• The court held that since there was no intention to claim the reward at the time of the act. – contradicts English doctrine established in Gibbons.

• The court said that C had never acted in reaction to or in reliance upon the reward offered and therefore he was not accepting the offer.

Isaacs ACJ

• Says that if A offers a reward to anyone who swims to the harbour from 100yds away in the sea and B, after being thrown overboard, swims the distance to save himself, there is surely no contract.

• A would not feel any moral obligation to B since B is not acting to fulfil the contract. 

RELATED CASES

• Gibbons v Proctor