RV

CLARKE
1927
40 CLR
227
A case presentation by –
Sagnik Bag (19010967)
FACTS OF THE CASE
Evan Clarke, the petitioner was convicted of being an
accessory to the murder of two policemen Walsh and Pitman.
In order to reduce his sentence, he gives information which
leads to the arrest of the murderers.
He later files a petition to sue the Crown for £1000, a reward
publicly offered by the Government of Western Australia for
information leading to conviction and arrest of murderers of
the two policemen.
Clarke although had no intention to claim the reward, was
breaking down due to the stress and upon suggestion by
Inspector Condon made an application.
ISSUES
Was Clarke legally obligated to claim the reward for giving
information which led to the arrest of the murderers ?
Is motive irrelevant if the offer had been heard or arguably
relied upon by the claimant?
Is there an acceptance, when one who was once mindful of the
offer, performs the mentioned act however not in dependence
upon the unilateral offer?
RULES
One cannot accept in ignorance of a proposal as there was no
meeting of minds and there had not been dependence or
action upon its confidence at the recommended time of
performance.
The motive of the informer in accepting the unilateral contract
offered has nothing to do with his entitlement to recuperate
under the contract.
The acceptance must be aware of and acting in reliance of the
offer to amount to acceptance.
ANALYSIS

This case revolves around the key fact whether acceptance by

Clarke through communication or conduct is valid if it was
done in response to the offer.
The judgements shows us how the different judges of the
bench had different opinions regarding the case.
Isaacs ACJ commented on whether acceptance and
performance must be acted on the offer and referred to the
£100 swimming reward problem by talking about how an act
done with reference to a different objective is not
performance.
ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)

Higgins J commented by saying that there cannot be assent

without knowledge of the offer and also commented that
Clarke had no intention to accept, there was no mental assent
and that there was no meeting of minds. He also rebutted the
presumption of knowledge of the offer.
Starke J commented that one having the offer before him must
be acting upon its faith or in reliance upon it.
CONCLUSION
Clarke did not act in reliance upon the offer. His real motive
was to clear himself of conviction.
He never had intentions to accept the offer, hence the contract
was void.
The judges ruled in favour of the crown and the appeal was
allowed. Hence, Clark was not entitled to receive reward.
THANK YOU