Williams v Carwardine (1833) is one of the oldest cases on unilateral offers and motive. Here is a structured summary of the case along with its key details.
- Citation: Williams v Carwardine [1833] EWHC KB J44, 172 ER 1101, (1833) 5 Car & P 566 (often reported as (1833) 4 B & Ad 621; 110 ER 590)
- Court: England and Wales High Court (King’s Bench Division)-Hereford Assizes
- Date: 22 March 1833
- Judge: Parke J
- Area of Law: Unilateral Contracts, Reward Offers, Effect of Motive on Acceptance
Key Facts: Williams v Carwardine
The defendant published a handbill offering £20 reward to anyone (except the murderer) who gave information leading to the discovery of the murder of his brother, Walter Carwardine.
The plaintiff, Mary Anne Williams, had previously given a weak/incorrect statement.
Months later, after being beaten by one of the suspects (William Williams) and believing she was near death, she made a full confession about what she saw on the night of the murder.
Her motive: to ease her conscience, not to earn the reward.
Her information led to the conviction of the murderers: Joseph Pugh, John Matthews, and William Williams.
She claimed the £20.
Defendant argued: She did not give the information because of the reward, but due to fear of death and guilt of conscience. Therefore, she did not “accept” the offer.
Legal Issue
Did Mrs Williams’ motive (that she acted from conscience rather than for the reward) prevent formation of a contract and therefore bar recovery of the advertised reward?
Decision / Ratio (Williams v Carwardine)
The court held for Mrs Williams. Because she knew of the offer and performed the condition of the offer (giving information that led to the conviction), she was entitled to the reward. The judges made clear that the motive for performing the act was immaterial — performance of the terms of a public/unilateral offer by a person who knows of that offer will normally give rise to liability to pay.
A famous statement by Parke J:
“The motive is not material; if she comes within the terms of the handbill, that is sufficient.”
Significance
Williams v Carwardine is a leading authority on unilateral (reward) offers and acceptance by performance. It supports the proposition that objective performance of the offer’s terms (together with knowledge of the offer) is enough — subjective motive is irrelevant.
The case is often contrasted with R v Clarke (Australian HCA) on whether reliance on the offer is required; Williams suggests mere knowledge of the offer (and performance of its terms) suffices, while Clarke has been read to require reliance, i.e., the claimant must act in reliance on the offer.
References:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1833/J44.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:
- Powell v Lee (1908): Acceptance and Communication
- How Livingstone v Evans Defines Counteroffer in Contract Law
- Summergreene v Parker [1950] HCA 13: Contract Not Concluded
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.