Website Technology Profiler

{
  "PageContent": "<h3>Case Judgments - Summary of important cases</h3>R v Clarke (1927) is a leading Australian contract law case on offer &amp; 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 227Court: High Court of AustraliaJudges: Isaacs ACJ, Higgins J, Starke JDecision date: 22 November 1927Area of Law: Contract Law — Acceptance of Offer, Reward Cases, Intention &amp; RelianceBackground Facts: R v ClarkeTwo 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 QuestionCan a person claim a reward when they provide information that satisfies the conditions, even if they did NOT act in reliance on the offer?ORIs 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 CaseA 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.htmlYOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:",
  "Url": "https://casejudgments.com",
  "IpAddress": "167.172.152.66",
  "ReverseDns": "1298193.cloudwaysapps.com",
  "Asn": null,
  "Http2": false,
  "Http3": false,
  "ResponseTimeMs": 945,
  "StatusCode": 200,
  "ServerHeaders": [
    "nginx"
  ],
  "Ssl": {
    "Issuer": "CN=R12, O=Let's Encrypt, C=US",
    "Subject": "CN=casejudgments.com",
    "NotBefore": "2026-01-13T10:55:44-08:00",
    "NotAfter": "2026-04-13T11:55:43-07:00",
    "SubjectAltNames": [
      "DNS Name=casejudgments.com",
      "DNS Name=www.casejudgments.com"
    ],
    "Hsts": false,
    "Ciphers": [],
    "Protocol": "Tls13",
    "DaysUntilExpiry": 72
  },
  "Cdns": [],
  "HostingHints": [],
  "Cms": [
    "WordPress",
    "Drupal",
    "WordPress (robots.txt)"
  ],
  "Frameworks": [
    "jQuery"
  ],
  "JsLibraries": [],
  "Analytics": [
    "Google Analytics GA4",
    "Google Tag Manager"
  ],
  "AdsAndMarketing": [
    "Google AdSense"
  ],
  "PaymentGateways": [],
  "EcommerceHints": [
    "Magento",
    "PrestaShop"
  ],
  "SocialSignals": [],
  "MediaProviders": [],
  "SeoTags": [
    "content-type: text/html; charset=UTF-8"
  ],
  "HtmlLanguage": "en-US",
  "HasRobots": true,
  "HasSitemap": true,
  "SecurityHeaders": [],
  "CookiesObserved": [],
  "XhrApiHints": [],
  "SitemapCounts": {
    "total_urls": 5
  },
  "ChatWidgets": [],
  "ABTesting": [],
  "PrivacyConsent": [],
  "EmailMarketing": [],
  "WebFonts": [
    "Google Fonts"
  ],
  "DynamicJs": [
    "jQuery (CDN Detection)",
    "jQuery (script Resource)",
    "Bootstrap (CSS Classes)",
    "Foundation (CSS Classes)",
    "React (Script Analysis)",
    "ES6+ JavaScript Features",
    "jQuery (Script Analysis)",
    "Google Analytics (Script Analysis)",
    "Google Tag Manager (Script Analysis)",
    "Hotjar (Script Analysis)",
    "Web Server: nginx"
  ],
  "ResourceHosts": [
    "pagead2.googlesyndication.com",
    "casejudgments.com",
    "www.googletagmanager.com",
    "gmpg.org",
    "fonts.googleapis.com"
  ],
  "CssFrameworks": [],
  "BuildTools": [],
  "ServerTech": [
    "Generator: Site Kit by Google 1.170.0",
    "PHP (inferred from WordPress)"
  ],
  "DatabaseHints": [],
  "PageTitle": "Case Judgments - Summary of important cases",
  "MetaDescription": "Summary of important cases",
  "ImageCount": 11,
  "ScriptCount": 14,
  "LinkCount": 17,
  "Errors": [],
  "UiFrameworks": [
    "D3.js",
    "Bootstrap (Class Names)",
    "Angular Material (Class Names)",
    "Ionic (Class Names)",
    "Vuetify (Class Names)"
  ]
}