LAW OF CONTRACTS

Academic task no.2

Williams v. Carwardine

Submitted to- Submitted by-

1
 INDEX
PARTICULARS PAGE NO
Introduction 3
Facts of the Case 4-5
Question of law 6
Application of Law 6
Ratio Decidendi 6
Judgment 7
conclusion 8
Bibliography 9

2
 INTRODUCTION

Citation- Williams v Carwardine, (1833) 110 ER 590

Plaintiff- Mary Anne Williams

Defendant- Williams Carwardine

Year- 1833

Court- Court of King’s Bench

Judges- Denman CJ and Parke, Littledale, Patteson JJ

Country- United Kingdom

Area of Law- Communication of offer

This case deals with the topic of Communication of Offer- when completes, an offer to be valid,
must be communicated. Further it must be communicated to the person or persons, to whom it is
made.

Section 4 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 says that “ the communication of a proposal is
completed when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.”

It, thus, follows that an offer cannot be accepted unless and until it has been brought to the
knowledge of the person to whom it is made. To put it is otherwise, A cannot be said to make an
offer to B unless A brings the offer to the knowledge of B. B cannot be said to have accepted the
offer, even if he acts according to the term of the offer. Thus, acting in ignorance of an offer does
not amount to acceptance of the offer.

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.

3
Facts of the Case-

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 April 25, 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

4
Coley. I heard Mr. Carwardine's voice very plain. He said,‘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.

Question of law-

5
  Has the plaintiff formed a contract with the defendant in spite of the fact that she was
not motivated by the reward when the information was given?

Application of Law-
 The court held that Williams had clearly performed the terms of the offer (giving
information that lead to the conviction of the murderer) and the handbill, which she must
have known of given that it was posted all over Hereford, promised to give money for
that information. As a result, a contract was formed with any person who performed the
condition, without considering the motivations of the individual.

Ratio Decidendi-
 The motive of an individual in accepting the contract offered has nothing to do with his
right to recover under the contract.

 Neither mutual consent nor communication of assent is important in case of reward.

Judgment-
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount mentioned. 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.

6
Two judges clearly stated that motives were irrelevant and said that “if the person knows of the
handbill and does the thing, that is quite enough.” “We cannot go to plaintiff’s motive”

Court held that if someone “knows” of an offer, this is sufficient, whatever their motive. 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.

Conclusion-
This case was based on communication of offer- when completes which is mentioned in Section
4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Which states that the communication of a proposal is
completed when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. In Willian v
Carwardine the plaintiff, who knew the reward had been announced to be given to anyone who
will give information about the murder and plaintiff while giving the statement mentioned that
she had given the information to ease the conscience but she was well aware about the offer and
later on she claimed the amount mentioned and defendant refused to pay so court held that
defendant is bound to pay mentioned amount to the plaintiff as plaintiff was having full
knowledge about the offer while giving the statement.

7
Hence, I agree with the judgment given by the court that defendant is bound to pay mentioned
amount to plaintiff.

Bibliography-
 Indian Contract Act, 1872

 Law of Contracts by R. K. Bangia

 Wikipedia