R v Clarke [1927]
Share
R v Clarke [1927] HCA 47, (1927) 40 CLR 227 is a notable court case decided by the High Court of Australia in the realm of contract law. The case revolves around a reward offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the murderers of two police officers.
Evan Clarke sought to claim a reward of £1,000 for providing information that led to the conviction of a murderer, Treffene, involved in the killing of two police officers, Walsh and Pitman. The reward was offered under the Crown Suits Act 1898, and a proclamation outlined the conditions for claiming the reward. Clarke, who had seen the proclamation in May, provided the information in June while he was on trial himself as an accessory for murder. It was unclear whether Clarke was thinking about the reward at the time he provided the information. The Supreme Court of Western Australia initially dismissed Clarke's claim, stating that he did not rely on the offer and did not intend to enter into a contract.
The High Court held that Clarke was not entitled to claim the reward because he did not act in "reliance on" the offer, a crucial element for accepting and creating a contract. Chief Justice Isaacs and Justice Starke held that Clarke did not intend to accept the offer when providing the information. Isaacs emphasised that Clarke's motive was exclusively to clear himself from a false charge of murder, not in response to the general request for information outlined in the proclamation.
Higgins J concurred with the decision but expressed concern about the government's refusal to pay the reward, considering the valuable evidence Clarke provided in the prosecution of the murderers. However, he emphasised that for Clarke to succeed in his claim, he needed to establish a contract, and the evidence indicated that there was no contract.
Starke J acknowledged that the performance of some conditions could establish prima facie acceptance of the offer. However, in this case, the evidence demonstrated that Clarke had not relied on the offer when providing the information.
In summary, the court's decision rested on the principle that acceptance of an offer requires reliance on the offer, and Clarke's actions did not demonstrate such reliance on the reward offer. Consequently, the court ruled against Clarke's claim for the government reward.
Evan Clarke sought to claim a reward of £1,000 for providing information that led to the conviction of a murderer, Treffene, involved in the killing of two police officers, Walsh and Pitman. The reward was offered under the Crown Suits Act 1898, and a proclamation outlined the conditions for claiming the reward. Clarke, who had seen the proclamation in May, provided the information in June while he was on trial himself as an accessory for murder. It was unclear whether Clarke was thinking about the reward at the time he provided the information. The Supreme Court of Western Australia initially dismissed Clarke's claim, stating that he did not rely on the offer and did not intend to enter into a contract.
The High Court held that Clarke was not entitled to claim the reward because he did not act in "reliance on" the offer, a crucial element for accepting and creating a contract. Chief Justice Isaacs and Justice Starke held that Clarke did not intend to accept the offer when providing the information. Isaacs emphasised that Clarke's motive was exclusively to clear himself from a false charge of murder, not in response to the general request for information outlined in the proclamation.
Higgins J concurred with the decision but expressed concern about the government's refusal to pay the reward, considering the valuable evidence Clarke provided in the prosecution of the murderers. However, he emphasised that for Clarke to succeed in his claim, he needed to establish a contract, and the evidence indicated that there was no contract.
Starke J acknowledged that the performance of some conditions could establish prima facie acceptance of the offer. However, in this case, the evidence demonstrated that Clarke had not relied on the offer when providing the information.
In summary, the court's decision rested on the principle that acceptance of an offer requires reliance on the offer, and Clarke's actions did not demonstrate such reliance on the reward offer. Consequently, the court ruled against Clarke's claim for the government reward.
