R v Clarke - a clarification PDF

Preview

Summary

R v Clarke - case summary...

Description

R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227 – A Clarification 1. The following clarification on Slide 82 of my lecture slides on Acceptance (English Law) has come about due to a query from Megan. Well done, Megan! 2. What is stated in Slide 82 is the decision of the Full Court of Western Australia (“FCWA”). That decision was appealed to the High Court of Australia (“HCA”) (which is the highest court in Australia) by the Crown. The HCA overruled the FWCA. Therefore, for your purposes, please disregard Slide 82. 3. Explanation of HCA’s decision Clarke had been arrested along with another person, Treffene, for the murder of two police officers. The Crown had offered a reward to anyone who would give information leading to the conviction of the murderer. The FCWA held that since Clarke had knowledge of the offer (the reward), and had acted and relied on it, and there was a conviction of the actual murderer based on his information, he (Clarke) had accepted the unilateral offer by performing what was required of him, and was, therefore entitled to the reward. On appeal to the HCA, the Crown argued that although Clarke had knowledge and had performed what was required of him, he had not ‘acted’ on or ‘relied’ on the offer as such, and therefore there was no contract between him and the Crown. In support of this argument, the Crown relied on the fact that the evidence suggested that, when Clarke gave the information, he was not motivated by the reward; that he had acted purely to get himself released of the wrongful charge of murder against him by giving information relating to Treffene. The FCWA, in reaching its decision (as set out in Slide 82), had followed the English case of Williams v Carwardine (1835) 5 C&P 566 which had held that a person’s motive for giving information was irrelevant. The HCA, however, did not follow Williams v Carwardine and accepted the Crown’s argument, and hence allowed the Crown’s appeal (i.e. it disallowed Clarke’s claim). Conclusion The outcome of the case is that Clarke’s claim was dismissed. The ratio decidendi of the HCA’s judgment is that knowledge of the offer and performance of the conditions set out in the offer alone may be insufficient to amount to a valid acceptance of the offer for the purposes of answering the question whether a binding contract has come into existence. Additionally, ‘the person accepting and performing must act on the offer’ (per Isaacs ACJ)....