Is It Possible to Claim a Reward You Didn’t Know About?

The Critical Role of Conscious Knowledge in Rewards

Imagine you find a dog wandering aimlessly through your neighbourhood streets. You take it home, photograph it, and share the image with various neighbourhood social media groups. Before long, you locate its owner. When you return the dog, you learn that the owner had offered a reward to anyone who returned it, but you were never aware of that offer. Are you still entitled to claim the reward?

This scenario highlights the often contentious legal principles that govern rewards. If an individual is unaware of a reward or does not comply with its specific terms, that person may be barred from claiming it. Although this may appear unjust, such outcomes arise from well-established principles of contract law, particularly the rules that govern offer and acceptance. To understand how the law treats rewards, it is necessary to examine these foundational concepts.

The Offer

An offer is, fundamentally, a proposal to contract. In legal terms, it constitutes a declaration of intention by one party (the offeror) to another (the offeree), specifying the performance the offeror is willing to undertake and the terms on which they will do so. Although offers are often directed at specific individuals, they may also be addressed to groups or even the general public (such as the case with rewards).

For an offer to be valid, it must meet the following requirements:

The offer must be madeanimo contrahendi, thereby signifying an intention that its acceptance will result in a binding contract.
The offer must contain all material terms, thus leaving no significant matters to be negotiated.¹
The terms of the offer must be sufficiently clear and definite to enable the offeree to accept it simply by stating “yes.” Vague offers, which fail to provide a reasonably clear understanding of the offeror’s intentions, cannot give rise to enforceable obligations.

Acceptance of the Offer

A contract is formed when the offeree unequivocally accepts the offer, at which point the offer is terminated. Acceptance is a clear declaration of intention by the offeree, indicating unqualified assent to all the terms of the offer. This declaration may be explicit (e.g., “I accept your offer”) or tacit (e.g., nodding in agreement in response to an offer made in person).

The requirements for a valid acceptance are the following:

Acceptance must align entirely with the terms of the offer.² Conditional acceptances or counter-offers do not constitute valid acceptance.³
Only the party to whom the offer is made may accept it. Where an offer is directed to a general or specific audience, only members of that audience may validly accept it.⁴
If the offeror prescribes a method of acceptance, it must generally be followed.⁵ However, under the reliance theory, an alternative mode of acceptance may suffice if it reasonably leads the offeror to believe the prescribed form was followed.⁶
Acceptance must be a conscious response to the offer. This criterion is particularly significant in cases involving rewards.

Rewards

Rewards are unique in that they often involve offers made to the public, rather than a specific individual. While it is not possible to contract with the general public, an offer can be directed at the public or a specific segment, creating contractual obligations with individuals performing the required act. This principle was established in the landmark English case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.⁷ In Carlill, the manufacturer of a medical product promised £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after using the product as directed. The court upheld the claim of a customer who met the conditions, holding that the advertisement constituted a valid offer accepted by the claimant’s compliance with its terms.

Similarly, in Bloom v American Swiss Watch Company,⁸ the American Swiss Watch Company offered a reward for information leading to the arrest of thieves who had stolen its jewellery. Unaware of the reward, Bloom, the claimant, provided the necessary information and later sought to claim the reward after learning of its existence. The court denied the claim, emphasising that an offeree must have prior knowledge of an offer to accept it. As stated by the court, “until the plaintiff knew of the offer, he could not accept it, and until he accepted it, there could be no contract.”

Conclusion

Though sometimes seen as harsh or unjust, the law governing rewards is deeply rooted in contract law principles, particularly the requirement that acceptance must be a conscious response to an offer. A person who is unaware of an offer cannot accept it, and without acceptance, no contract is formed. This principle upholds the essence of mutual consent, which is fundamental to any binding contract.

In summary, the law of rewards exemplifies the intersection of contract law and public policy, highlighting the importance of clear communication and adherence to specific terms. The cases discussed demonstrate that offers must be precise, complete, and accepted in accordance with their terms for a contract to be valid. Whether the offer is made to the public or to a specific individual, the requirements for offer and acceptance remain crucial. While these rules may seem rigid, they ensure contractual agreements’ fairness, certainty, and clarity. Thus, the study of rewards in contract law clarifies the complexities of contractual obligations and reinforces the necessity of informed and deliberate participation in legal arrangements.