R v Clarke case note PDF

Preview

Summary

Download R v Clarke case note PDF

Description

CASE: R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227 ‘Relationship between offer, motive and acceptance’ Precedent: Consciousness of offer…intention/intend to accept. Acceptance must be in reliance and in response to the offer. The offeree must have clear knowledge of the existence of the offer for it to be valid and enforceable. Facts: Evan Clarke tried to claim the reward of £1000 for giving information that led to the conviction of a murderer, Treffene, of two policemen called Walsh and Pitman, under the Crown Suits Act 1898. Clarke was aware of this reward. Clarke was under suspicion of the murder by crown, and to reduce his own sentence, gave the information leading to the arrest of the murderers. Without that evidence there would have been no case. Clarke admitted that he had no intention (at the time he gave the information) to earn the reward. Crown refuses to pay reward. Issue: Whether Clarke could establish a contract – any such contract – unilateral. Was there a contract between Clarke and the Crown and how would one determine this contract? Judgement: Appeal allowed. HELD Starke J When giving the information, Clarke did not act "in reliance upon the offer or with the intention of entering into any contract". While the convictions would not have come about without his evidence, and so the Crown obtained what it wanted, Clarke gave the information solely to clear himself. HELD Isaacs ACJ "Motive, though not to be confused with intention, is very often strong evidence of that state of mind ... Motive can never usurp the legal place of intention". The distinction between motive and intention is one that is worth remembering - I may enter into a contract - my motive being to put the other party at a commercial disadvantage - and maybe even out of business HELD Higgins J

Clarke's motive and intention in giving the evidence was to protect himself, to clear himself of the charge of murder. Only after arrest, conviction and appeal by the others, did Clarke think of claiming the reward. It wasn't that he didn't know of the existence of the reward before then - he clearly did - it was just that he stated clearly in his evidence that he did not think about the reward at that time so clearly could not have given his evidence, intending to obtain the reward, or to enter into a contract with those who offered it. Principle: One cannot accept an offer one doesn't know exists, or that one has forgotten exists. One needs an expectation or reliance interest in the reward in order for that reward to be recoverable....