Revocation

You need to sort out your “offeror”, and your “offeree”! You’ve got me confused!

“Because when the offeror jumped in the water ….” I don’t think so!

“…to save the kid and offer revoked his offer…” Who revoked his offer?

Abror, you have worded your post as though it were my decisions and I’m trying to persuade you! Please, don’t shoot the messenger!

The story of the man that swam across the harbour to save the child is a past-exam question from the days of F4 being an exam asking for 10 essays!

The “boss of the gang” case was about the Ned Kelly gang in Australia

The question you should be asking about the hero that rescued the child is “Was the hero AWARE of the existence of the offer?” and the answer, according to the Court was “Yes, he was aware”

Now, ask the same question about Clark, the gang member “Was the gangster Clark AWARE of the existence of the offer?” and the answer, according to the Court was “No – he may have been at one time but, when faced with the choice of execution or turning Queen’s Evidence, there was room only for one thought in this man’s head (and that thought was not related to claiming a reward!)”

But you’re absolutely correct to question the concept! The resolution to your concerns could very well be that the doctrine of precedent did not apply simply because …… the judge found it distasteful that the murdering gangster should benefit by claiming a reward, so the judge determined that there was only a single thought in Clark’s head and that thought was of self-preservation.

Now, you please tell me, how can a judge determine that there is nothing else swilling around inside the head of Clark? Could you? Would you look inside Clark’s ear and say “Oh, yes, there see, there’s a thought floating around in there, but there’s only one of them”

Ridiculous!