2.9.8 Position in ‘reward’ contracts

It may be significant, however, that in both Errington and Daulia, the offeror was aware that the other person had embarked upon performance. In such a situation it is relatively easy to conclude that the offeror should be under an obligation not to withdraw - though whether such an obligation arises as an implication of the intention of the parties or is simply imposed by the courts is not clear. On the other hand, where the offer, such as the offer of a reward or prize, is one that is made to the world made to the world, it is by no means certain that precisely the same approach should apply. In the case, for example, of the offer of £100 for the return of a lost dog, it seems right that where a person is seen at the opposite end of the street, bringing the dog home, the offeror should not be able to shout out a withdrawal of the reward. But, suppose the offeror has run into financial problems since offering the reward, and cannot now afford to pay it: must the offeror remain committed to keeping the offer open as regards anyone who has started looking for the dog, even if the offeror is unaware of this? It would seem more reasonable that the offeror should be allowed, by giving notice in a reasonable manner (perhaps in the same way as which the offer was made), to withdraw the offer. It is an issue on which there is no English authority, so it is not possible to say with any certainty what the approach of the courts would be, but it is submitted that the fairest rule to all parties would be to hold that the Errington /Daulia approach should only apply where the offeror is aware that the other person is trying to perform the condition.

2.9.9. Acceptance in ignorance of an offer

It would seem logical that there can be no acceptance of an offer of which the person accepting was ignorant. Some problems have arisen, however, in relation to certain types of unilateral contract. Suppose a reward is offered for the return of a stolen bicycle, belonging to A, and posters are displayed advertising this fact. B, who has not seen any of the posters, finds the bicycle, and recognising it, returns it to A, its rightful owner. Can B claim the reward from A? There is one authority which suggests that he might be able to. That is Gibbons v Proctor, where a police officer gave information for which a reward had been offered. At the time that he gave the information, the officer was unaware of the reward, though he had learnt of it by the time the information reached the person who had offered the reward. It was held that the officer was entitled to claim the reward. This decision has not been followed in any later case, however, and must be regarded as being of doubtful authority. The better view seems to be that knowledge is necessary for an effective acceptance.

A slightly different issue arises where the person performing the act has previously known of the offer, but is acting from different motives. In the Australian case of R v Clarke, it was held that a person who had known of the offer, but was at the time acting purely out of consideration of his own danger, should be treated as acting in ignorance of the offer. On the other hand, in Williams v Carwardine, it was held that acting for mixed motives, that is to ease one’s conscience, while at the same time having the reward in mind, did not preclude a valid acceptance of the offer.

It seems, therefore, that there needs to be at the very least awareness of the offer and, probably, that responding to it must be at least be part of the reason for undertaking the relevant actions.