R v Clarke (1927) is a leading Australian contract law case on offer & acceptance and, more specifically, whether a person can accept an offer (reward) without relying on it. Here is a clean and structured analysis of the case.
- Citation: R v Clarke [1927] HCA 47; (1927) 40 CLR 227
- Court: High Court of Australia
- Judges: Isaacs ACJ, Higgins J, Starke J
- Decision date: 22 November 1927
- Area of Law: Contract Law — Acceptance of Offer, Reward Cases, Intention & Reliance
Background Facts: R v Clarke
Two police officers, Inspector Walsh and Sergeant Pitman, were murdered in Western Australia.
The Government issued a proclamation offering £1,000 as a reward for “such information as shall lead to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who committed the murders.”
Evan Clarke, who was himself under suspicion, gave information that helped police catch the criminals.
Importantly, he was not acting with the intention of claiming the reward — he was acting to clear himself of a murder charge.
He later tried to claim the reward.
The Main Legal Question
Can a person claim a reward when they provide information that satisfies the conditions, even if they did NOT act in reliance on the offer?
OR
Is knowledge of the offer + performance of the conditions enough, even without intention to accept the offer?
High Court’s Decision and Reasoning (R v Clarke)
The High Court held Clarke could NOT claim the reward.
All three judges agreed that in unilateral contracts (like rewards), performance of the act = acceptance, but only if the performance is done in response to the offer.
There must be knowledge of the offer, and acting on the faith of the offer (reliance). A person who performs the conditions of a reward must do so in reliance on the offer.
Clarke himself admitted that he gave information solely to save himself. He had no thought of the reward at the time.
Outcome:
Clarke not entitled to the £1,000.
The Court criticised the old case of Williams v Carwardine. In Williams v Carwardine (1833), a woman provided information because of guilt, but still received the reward. The High Court said: That case is unclear. If it is taken to mean that motive doesn’t matter so long as the person knew of the offer, it may be wrong.
Key Principle from the Case
A reward cannot be claimed unless the act is done in reliance on the offer.
Knowledge alone is NOT enough.
To form a contract from a unilateral offer (a reward), the claimant must act in reliance on the offer — i.e. perform the conditions in response to the offer. Because the evidence showed Clarke gave the information to secure his own position (not in response to the reward), there was no acceptance and no contract.
You may refer to the full case judgment here:
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1927/47.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:
- What Did Wakeling v Ripley [1951] Decide on Legal Intent?
- Lens v Devonshire Club (1914): A Quick Legal Summary
- Roufos v Brewster (1971) 2 SASR 218: A Legal Case Summary
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.