Introduction
This essay examines whether Chanda, a policeman who recovered Peters’ stolen car, has a contractual right to the K10,000 reward advertised in the Post Newspaper. The advertisement specified that the reward would be given for information leading to the car’s recovery, with a claim deadline of 31 January. Chanda applied for the reward via a letter posted on 25 January, which arrived at Peters’ house on 2 February. This analysis will explore the principles of contract law, particularly the rules governing unilateral contracts and the requirements for acceptance, to determine Chanda’s legal position. The essay will address the nature of the reward offer, the timing of Chanda’s claim, and potential exceptions or considerations under UK contract law principles.
The Nature of the Reward Offer as a Unilateral Contract
In contract law, a reward advertisement is typically classified as an offer for a unilateral contract. This means that the offeror, Peters, promises to pay a reward in exchange for the performance of a specific act, namely providing information leading to the recovery of the car. As established in the landmark case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893), such an offer is binding once the act is performed, provided the offeree is aware of the offer at the time of performance (Bowerman, 2005). Here, Chanda was informed of the reward by his friend Banda after recovering the car. A critical issue arises: if Chanda was unaware of the reward at the time of finding the car, his performance may not constitute acceptance of the offer. Courts generally hold that acceptance in unilateral contracts requires knowledge of the offer, as the offeree must intend to accept the terms (Treitel, 2015). Thus, if Chanda acted without knowledge, his claim may be invalid unless his subsequent application is deemed sufficient.
Timing of the Claim and Acceptance
The advertisement stipulates that the reward must be claimed by 31 January. Chanda posted his letter on 25 January, but it arrived on 2 February. Under the postal rule, established in Adams v Lindsell (1818), acceptance is generally effective when a letter is posted, provided it is properly addressed and stamped (Poole, 2016). If this rule applies, Chanda’s acceptance would be valid as of 25 January, meeting the deadline. However, unilateral contracts often differ, as acceptance is typically complete upon performance of the act, not communication. Since the reward conditions include a claim deadline, it is arguable that Peters intended communication to be received by 31 January. Without specific wording in the advertisement about receipt, this remains ambiguous. Courts may interpret such terms strictly, potentially disqualifying Chanda’s late-arriving claim.
Additional Considerations
Another factor is Chanda’s role as a policeman. In some cases, public officers are barred from claiming rewards for acts performed within their official duties, as seen in England v Davidson (1840) (Treitel, 2015). If Chanda found the car as part of his policing role, Peters could argue that he is ineligible. However, this principle is not absolute and depends on whether the act exceeded normal duties. Furthermore, the car’s severe damage raises a question of whether the recovery met the offer’s implied condition of returning the car in a certain state, though this is not explicitly stated in the advertisement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Chanda’s contractual right to the reward is uncertain and hinges on several legal considerations. If he was unaware of the reward when recovering the car, his performance may not constitute acceptance of Peters’ offer. Additionally, while the postal rule might validate his timely posting on 25 January, the delayed arrival of his letter on 2 February could disqualify his claim if receipt by the deadline was required. Moreover, his status as a policeman may further complicate eligibility. Chanda should seek to prove he acted with knowledge of the reward and argue that posting before the deadline suffices for acceptance. However, based on strict contractual principles, his claim appears vulnerable. This case underscores the importance of clarity in reward offers and the complexities of unilateral contracts in practice.
References
- Bowerman, P. (2005) Contract Law: Principles and Cases. London: Routledge.
- Poole, J. (2016) Textbook on Contract Law. 13th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Treitel, G. H. (2015) The Law of Contract. 14th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
