Contract Law

R v. Clarke

(1927) 40 CLR 227

Facts

The Government of Western Australia offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of persons responsible for the murder of two police officers.
Clarke was himself suspected of involvement in the crime.
While being questioned, he gave information that helped the authorities identify and convict the actual offenders.
Clarke later claimed the reward.
Evidence showed that when he supplied the information, his main purpose was to clear himself from suspicion.
He admitted that he was not acting in reliance on, or with the reward in mind.
The Government refused payment.
Clarke argued that he had performed the exact act required by the reward offer and was therefore entitled to the money.

Whether a person can accept a unilateral reward offer by performing its conditions without acting in reliance on the offer.
Whether mere knowledge of the offer, without intention to accept it, is sufficient.

A unilateral offer is accepted by performing the act requested by the offeror.
However, the act must be performed in response to, and in reliance on, the offer.
A person who performs the required act for an entirely different reason, without intending to accept the offer, does not form a contract.
Mere coincidence between the act performed and the condition stated in the offer is insufficient.

The reward advertisement was capable of being a unilateral offer to the public.
Clarke also knew of the reward at some earlier point.
However, the Court examined his state of mind when he actually supplied the information.
Clarke gave the information to protect himself and remove suspicion that he had participated in the murder.
He was not acting in response to the Government’s promise.
His own evidence indicated that the reward had passed out of his mind at the relevant time.
Therefore, although his conduct objectively assisted the authorities, it was not intended as acceptance of the reward offer.
The Court treated acceptance as requiring a connection between:
the offer; and
the offeree’s performance.
The performance must be induced by the offer, at least in the sense that the offeree performs the act as a means of accepting the promise.
Without that connection, there is no consensus between the parties.
Clarke could not later convert an act performed for self-preservation into contractual acceptance simply because it happened to satisfy the advertised condition.
The case is different from Carlill, where Mrs Carlill used the smoke ball in direct response to the advertisement.
In Clarke, the required act was performed independently of the reward promise.

The High Court of Australia held that Clarke was not entitled to the reward.
He had not supplied the information in reliance on the offer or with an intention to accept it.
Therefore, no contract was formed.
Use this case for: a reward offer must be acted upon in reliance on the offer; accidental or independently motivated performance is not acceptance.