The police had charged 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.