Introduction
This essay examines the legal position of Chanda, a policeman who seeks to claim a reward of K10,000 offered by Peters for information leading to the recovery of his stolen car. The reward was advertised in the Post Newspaper with a condition that it must be claimed by 31st January. Chanda, upon learning of the reward through his friend Banda, posted a letter claiming it on 25th January, which arrived at Peters’ house on 2nd February. This scenario raises questions about the formation of a unilateral contract, the timing of acceptance, and potential barriers such as Chanda’s status as a policeman. Drawing on principles of contract law, particularly under English law, this essay will evaluate whether Chanda has a contractual right to the reward. Key issues to be addressed include whether the reward constitutes a valid offer, whether Chanda’s actions amount to acceptance, the significance of the delayed letter, and any public policy considerations regarding his professional role. The essay aims to provide a clear analysis of these elements to advise Chanda on his legal entitlement.
The Nature of the Reward as a Unilateral Offer
In English contract law, a reward advertisement is typically construed as a unilateral offer, where the offeror promises to pay a reward in exchange for the performance of a specified act. This principle was established in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893), where the court held that a public advertisement promising a reward for using a product and not contracting influenza constituted a unilateral contract (Bowen LJ, 1893). Applying this to Peters’ case, his advertisement in the Post Newspaper offering K10,000 for information leading to the recovery of his car likely forms a unilateral offer. The offer is open to the public, and acceptance is completed by performing the specified act—providing information that leads to the car’s recovery. Chanda, having found the car, appears to have fulfilled this condition. However, the critical question is whether other contractual elements, such as communication of acceptance and adherence to the deadline, have been satisfied.
Moreover, in unilateral contracts, the offeror may impose specific conditions for acceptance. Peters explicitly stipulated that the reward must be claimed by 31st January. This creates a temporal limitation on the offer, which, as noted by Beale (2012), can render the offer lapsed if the condition is not met. Thus, the timing of Chanda’s claim becomes a pivotal issue in determining his entitlement.
Timing of Acceptance and the Postal Rule
In a unilateral contract, acceptance generally occurs through performance of the specified act rather than communication, unless the offeror stipulates otherwise (Peel, 2015). Here, Peters’ advertisement implies that a claim must be made by 31st January, suggesting that communication of the claim within this timeframe may be necessary. Chanda posted his letter on 25th January, before the deadline, but it arrived on 2nd February, after the stipulated date. This delay invokes the postal rule, a principle in English contract law stating that acceptance by post is effective upon posting, provided the letter is properly stamped and addressed (Adams v Lindsell, 1818, as cited in McKendrick, 2019). If the postal rule applies, Chanda’s acceptance would be deemed effective on 25th January, within the deadline, potentially securing his right to the reward.
However, the postal rule typically applies to bilateral contracts where acceptance is communicated by post in response to an offer. Its application to unilateral contracts, such as rewards, is less certain. Some legal scholars argue that in reward cases, acceptance is completed by performance, and communication (if required) must comply strictly with the offeror’s terms (Treitel, 2011). Peters may argue that the claim needed to be received by 31st January, rendering Chanda’s delayed letter ineffective. Without specific case law directly addressing this nuance in reward claims, it remains arguable whether the postal rule aids Chanda. On balance, the court might lean towards requiring strict compliance with the deadline for receipt, potentially jeopardising his claim.
Chanda’s Status as a Policeman and Public Policy Considerations
A further complication arises from Chanda’s role as a policeman. In English law, public policy considerations may prevent individuals from claiming rewards for actions performed as part of their professional duties. The case of England v Davidson (1840) illustrates this principle, where a police officer was denied a reward for providing information, as it was deemed within his duty to do so without additional compensation (as discussed in Poole, 2010). Chanda, being a policeman, likely has a duty to recover stolen property as part of his role. Peters could argue that rewarding Chanda for fulfilling his existing obligations undermines public policy by incentivising officers to prioritise personal gain over duty.
However, this rule is not absolute. If Chanda’s actions went beyond his ordinary duties or if the reward was offered without knowledge of his profession, a court might permit the claim. Additionally, since the advertisement was open to “any person,” it does not explicitly exclude police officers, which could support Chanda’s position. Nevertheless, public policy remains a significant barrier, and courts often err on the side of restricting such claims to avoid conflicts of interest. This aspect may weaken Chanda’s contractual right, regardless of the timing issue.
Knowledge of the Offer at the Time of Performance
Another crucial element in unilateral contracts is that the offeree must have knowledge of the offer at the time of performance to claim the reward. In R v Clarke (1927), an Australian case often cited in English law discussions, the court held that a person who performed the act without knowledge of the reward could not claim it, as there was no intention to accept the offer (McKendrick, 2019). In Chanda’s case, the facts indicate that he found the car before his friend Banda informed him of the reward. If Chanda was unaware of the offer when he recovered the car, his subsequent application for the reward may not constitute valid acceptance, as his performance was not motivated by the offer. This could be a decisive factor against his claim, as intention to accept the terms of the unilateral contract at the time of performance is essential.
Conclusion
In advising Chanda, it appears that several legal hurdles may prevent him from successfully claiming the K10,000 reward. Firstly, while Peters’ advertisement likely constitutes a unilateral offer, the condition of claiming by 31st January raises doubts about the timeliness of Chanda’s letter, which arrived late despite being posted before the deadline. The uncertain application of the postal rule in unilateral contracts further complicates this issue. Secondly, Chanda’s status as a policeman may bar his claim due to public policy principles that discourage rewarding public officers for fulfilling their duties. Finally, and perhaps most critically, if Chanda was unaware of the reward when he found the car, his performance lacks the necessary intention to accept the offer, undermining his contractual right. Therefore, it is likely that Chanda does not have a strong legal basis to claim the reward. He should be advised that pursuing this claim may be unsuccessful unless evidence can demonstrate both knowledge of the offer at the time of performance and a judicial interpretation favouring the postal rule or disregarding his professional status. This case underscores the complexities of unilateral contracts and the importance of precise compliance with an offeror’s terms.
References
- Beale, H. (2012) Chitty on Contracts. 31st edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
- McKendrick, E. (2019) Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 9th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Peel, E. (2015) Treitel on the Law of Contract. 14th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
- Poole, J. (2010) Textbook on Contract Law. 10th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Treitel, G. H. (2011) The Law of Contract. 13th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
[Word count: 1052, including references]
