| Williams v Carwardine | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | King's Bench |
| Decided | 22 March 1833 |
| Citations | [1833] EWHC KB J44, (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 621; 110 E.R. 590 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Lord Denman CJ, Littledale J, Parke J, and Patteson J |
Williams v Carwardine [1833] EWHC KB J44 is an English contract law case which concerns how a contract comes about through the offer of a reward. It also raises interesting questions about the necessity of reliance on an offer in the formation of a contract.
Mrs Mary Anne Williams claimed a reward of £20 from Mr Carwardine for giving information that led to the arrest of her husband, Mr William Williams, for murdering Mr Carwardine's brother. Walter Carwardine was murdered near a pub in Hereford in March 1831, and his body was found in the River Wye in April. The plaintiff, Mrs Williams, gave evidence at the Hereford assizes against two suspects, but did not say all she knew between 13 and 19 April. The suspects were acquitted. On 25 April 1831 the victim's brother and defendant, Mr Carwardine, published a handbill, stating there would be a £20 for...
"whoever would give such information as would lead to the discovery of the murder of Walter Carwardine."
Shortly after, Mrs Williams was "beaten and bruised" by Mr Williams. Thinking she would die soon in August, 1831, and apparently to "ease her conscience", Mrs Williams gave more information which led to the conviction of her husband, Mr William Williams, and another man. She claimed the reward. Mr Carwardine refused to pay, arguing that she was not induced by the reward to give the information. At the trial her motives were examined. It was found that she knew about the reward, but that she did not give information specifically to get the reward.
Mrs Williams statement was as follows.
“The voluntary statement of Mary Anne Williams, made this 23rd day of August, 1831, before me, one of his Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said city, who, on her oath saith, that, in consequence of her miserable and unhappy situation, and believing that she has not long to live, she makes this voluntary statement to ease her conscience, and in hopes of forgiveness hereafter. That, on Thursday night in the assize week, in the month of March last, between the hours of eleven and twelve o'clock, I went into Joseph Pugh's house, in Quaker's Lane, and there saw Susan Connop, Sarah Coley, Susan Reignart, Mr. Webb, the butcher, and Walter Carwardine. After drinking with them, I left the house with Mr. Webb. I walked as far as the King's Head Inn, in Broad Street; I returned by the way of Eign Street to the end of Quaker's Lane, by Eign Gate Turnpike. I went along the lane as far as the gate of Mr. Thomas the coachmaker's meadow opposite to the Cross Lane, where I heard a noise. I there saw Joseph Pugh, William Williams, a man of the name of Matthews, and Sarah Coley. I heard Mr. Carwardine's voice very plain. He said, [570] ‘For God's sake do not murder me.’ I heard Coley say, ‘I have got his blunt, and if you will keep secret I'll treat.’ Williams said, ‘We will soon put him out of the way.’ I then heard a dreadful blow, and Mr. Carwardine fell on the ground on his back. I distinctly heard two long deep groans, as if he was dying. I did not hear him speak. After a moment Williams saw me, he ran to me, and forced me into the turnpike road, near Eign Gate; Williams ran back along the lane to the Cross Lane; I went along the turnpike road to the Red Lion Inn, turned up Townditch Lane into the Cross Lane, but no one was there. I went into Quaker's Lane, by the end of the barn, and listened. I heard Pugh, Williams, Matthews, and Coley, about Mr. Thomas's house, the carpenter, three parts down the lane, towards the tan yard, I distinctly heard Pugh curse his eyes, and say, ‘Go on.’ Coley said, ‘Don't talk so loud; don't be in a hurry.’ I was very much frightened, and I got into the house, and went to bed. (Signed) Mary Anne Williams . “Sworn before me, William Milton.”
At the trial (nisi prius) Justice James Parke (Parke J) said, [1]
"The motive was the state of her own feelings. My opinion is, the motive is not material."
He held that she was entitled to the reward.
The Court, consisting of Lord Denman CJ, Littledale J and Patteson J held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the £20. The advertisement amounted to a general promise or contract to pay the offered reward to any person who performed the condition mentioned in it, namely, who gave the information. Two judges clearly stated that motives were irrelevant. One of two case reports read as follows. [2] [3]
Denman, C. J. — Was any doubt suggested as to whether the plaintiff knew of the handbill at the time of her making the disclosure?
Curwood [Counsel]. — She must have known of it, as it was placarded all over Hereford, the place at which she lived.
Mr. Justice J. Parke. — I take this to have been a contract with any one who did the thing.
Mr. Justice Littledale. — If the person knows of the handbill and does the thing, that is quite enough. It does not say, whoever will come forward in consequence of this handbill.
Denman, C. J. — As the plaintiff is within the terms of the handbill, she is entitled to the reward..
Mr. Justice Patteson. — The plaintiff being within the terms, her motive is not material.
This case has generated some controversy, because in R v Clarke the Australian High Court held that it was consistent with the proposition that "reliance" on an offer is essential for the possibility of acceptance, and therefore formation of a contract. [4] By contrast, Littledale J suggests that if someone "knows" of an offer, this is sufficient, whatever their motive. [5] A third possibility is that no knowledge of an offer is necessary for the formation of a binding obligation (whether contractual or not). If someone offers a reward, or makes a general offer to anyone who performs certain terms, they will be bound by their offer to the person who confers a benefit upon them. Not to do so could be regarded either as unconscionable, or lead to unjust enrichment.
Charles Bannister (1738–1804) was an English actor, comedian and singer.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company[1893] 1 QB 256 is an English contract law decision by the Court of Appeal, which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is notable for its treatment of contract and of puffery in advertising, for its curious subject matter associated with medical quackery, and how the influential judges developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law student studies in the law of contract.
Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts. The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including in the United States.
Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.
The Ratcliff Highway murders were two attacks on two separate families – the Marr and Williamson families – that resulted in seven fatalities. The two attacks occurred twelve days apart in December 1811, in homes located half a mile apart near the London Docklands district of Wapping, London, England, United Kingdom. The main suspect in the slayings, John Williams, killed himself before he could be put on trial.
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 is a leading English contract law case. It held that there is a rebuttable presumption against an intention to create a legally enforceable agreement when the agreement is domestic in nature.
This Property Is Condemned is a 1966 American drama film directed by Sydney Pollack and starring Natalie Wood, Robert Redford, Kate Reid, Charles Bronson, Robert Blake and Mary Badham. The screenplay, inspired by the 1946 one-act play of the same name by Tennessee Williams, was written by Francis Ford Coppola, Fred Coe and Edith Sommer. The film was released by Paramount Pictures.
R v Clarke, is court case decided by the High Court of Australia in the law of contract.
Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1977] is an English contract law case, concerning unilateral contracts, and when embarking on the performance of an act for which an offer is open, at what point the offer may be withdrawn. In particular, Goff LJ observed that there would be a duty to not prevent full performance of terms in a unilateral offer, once performance had begun.
Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon, the Mikhail Lermontov case, is a leading Australian contract law case, on the incorporation of exclusion clauses and damages for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment.
Mary Lord née Hyde was an English Australian woman who in the period 1855 to 1859 sued the Commissioners of the City of Sydney and won compensation for the sum of over £15,600 for the inundation of her property at Botany.
The Litigation before the judgment in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company was a rather decorated affair, considering that a future Prime Minister served as counsel for the company. A close reading of the submissions and the decision in the Queen's Bench show that the result of the Court of Appeal was not inevitable or necessarily a decision on orthodox principles of previous case law.
Comanche Station is a 1960 American CinemaScope Western film directed by Budd Boetticher and starring Randolph Scott. The film was the last of Boetticher's late 1950s Ranown Cycle. It was filmed in the Eastern Sierra area of Central California near Lone Pine, California, not far from the foot of Mount Whitney. The towering granitic boulders known as the Alabama Hills served as the backdrop for the film's opening and closing scenes.
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850 is an English contract law case, which is best known for a classic formulation by Parke B on the purpose and measure of compensatory damages for breach of contract that,
the rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed.
Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd[1998] UKHL 17 is an important English tort law, company law and contract law case. It held that for there to be an effective assumption of responsibility, there must be some direct or indirect conveyance that a director had done so, and that a claimant had relied on the information. Otherwise only a company itself, as a separate legal person, would be liable for negligent information.
Kirksey v. Kirksey, Ala. Sup. 8 Ala. 131 (1845), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama that held that a promise by a man, Issac Kirksey, to give his sister-in-law a house if she would move to his land was not a valid contract because it lacked bargained-for-consideration.
Cresswell v Potter [1978] 1 WLR 255 is an English contract law case relating to exploitation of weakness allowing escape from a contract.
Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463 is an English contract law case heard by the Court of Appeal, Chancery Division, which held that notification by a third party of an offer's withdrawal is effective just like a withdrawal by the person who made an offer. The significance of this case to many students of contract law is that a promise to keep an offer open is itself a contract which must have some consideration.
CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt[1993] UKHL 7 is a decision of the House of Lords relating to undue influence. The decision confirmed that a person did not need to suffer "manifest disadvantage" under a transaction in order to challenge it for actual undue influence.
Fanny Robertson, born Frances Mary Ross, was an actress and later the manager of the provincial theatres of the Lincoln Circuit.