I need a little clarification regarding the subject. In your lecture (Chp 4 – Contract Law part 4) you mentioned the exam question about the offer of reward if one were to swim across the water channel (something like this). The “superhero” did swim across but couldn’t the offeror (loud mouth) have claimed that his motivation to act (R v Clark) was not the reward but to save the child?
Can you please explain the difference? I am a bit confused.
Hi, no, I said in the lecture that “motivation” is irrelevant. What IS important if you are to be able to claim a reward is “awareness that the offer existed”
Williams v Carwardine illustrates the point
R v Clark it was proved to the judge / court that Clark, at the time he gave his evidence “had nothing else in his mind other than how to save his own life”. And “nothing else in his mind” included the fact that, whereas he had at some time in the past been aware of the existence of the offer, at the time of giving his evidence, that “awareness” was gone
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.