Rewards:
Basic Rule: English authority is "Neville v Kelly" stated obiter that an offer of a reward can be claimed for even if the offeree did not know about it.
AO2: This was severly criticised by judges and critics alike, therefore we follow Australian authority.
In the case of "R v Clarke", information was given which lead to the conviction of a murderer, but he forgot about the reward. It was held that he wasn't entitled to the reward.
AO2: This is rather harsh and unfair as the defendant forgot about the reward. Forgetting about a reward is like never knowing a fact.
However, if a party knows about a reward, but has a different motive, they can still claim for their reward. This can be seen illustrated in the case of "Wiliams v Cowardine". In this case information was given to clear the conscience of a woman who thought she was dying. It was held that she was still entitled to the reward. The fact the claimant had mixed motives was irrelevant.
Comments
No comments have yet been made