This contrasts with the situation where there is absolutely no knowledge of
the offer. The following Australian case falls somewhere between the two.
It has been suggested that the above two cases can be distinguished because
Clarke was not even partly motivated by the reward, but it must in practice be
extremely difficult to differentiate objectively between these two instances,
especially as they depend largely upon evidence given at the time of the
hearing. The decision in Clarke could be criticised on practical grounds, since
if Clarke had lied and had said that he really had thought about the reward
when he gave the information, he would have been entitled to it. He was, then,
penalised for telling the truth! It is also difficult to accept the argument that
forgetting a fact is the same as never having known of it. Of course, the case
of Clarke is not technically binding in the United Kingdom since it is
Australian, and there is not really a direct authority exactly on this point.
So the legal points emerging from these cases can be summarised as follows:
- Responding to an offer with mixed motives can form a valid acceptance
(Williams v Carwardine).
26 Contract law
dead man’s wife, who had offered a reward for the information. The
plaintiff had given the information ‘to ease my conscience and in the
hope of forgiveness thereafter’. She was in fact ill and feared that she
would soon die. It was held that her motives were largely irrelevant.
She had given the information with knowledge of the reward, and had
therefore made a valid acceptance of the offer.R v Clarke (1927)
In this case the defendant knew of a reward for information leading to
the arrest and conviction of the murderers of two police officers. He
gave the necessary information, but admitted as evidence in court that
he had only done so to clear himself of possible charges. He had no
thought of claiming any reward, and had actually forgotten about it at
the time of giving the information. However, he decided to claim the
money that was obviously available, since he had known of it, and had
provided the necessary information. The evidence that he gave that he
had forgotten about the reward was considered by the court to be the
same as never having known of the offer, and the High Court of
Australia dismissed his claim for the reward.Forgetting the = Never having known DOES IT?
reward of the reward Do you agree?