Bloom v the American Swiss Watch Company

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Innes CJ, Solomon JA and De Villiers AJA
• Judgment Date: 03 February 1915
• Hearing Date: 02 February 1915
• Court: Appellate Division

Innes, C.J.:

On 19th March, 1913, a robbery was perpetrated at the Cape Town premises of the defendant company and jewellery to the value of £5,000 was forcibly removed. In the press of the following day appeared a notice in these terms: "Mr. J. Hirschsohn of the American Swim Watch Company called at the Argus office this afternoon and stated that be was prepared to pay to any person a reward of £500 for information to be given to the C.I.D. which would lead to the arrest of the thieves and the recovery of the diamonds, jewellery, etc., stolen from his premises on the 19th instant. If the information leads to the recovery of a portion only of the property, the reward will be paid proportionately." Information reached the police authorities from various sources; the culprits were arrested, and the bulk of the property was recovered. Thereupon proceedings were commenced by different persons claiming the reward. The actions were heard together, and the trial Judge came to the conclusion that it was the information furnished by the plaintiff which led in due course to the arrest of the thieves and the recovery of the goods. But he also found as a fact that the plaintiff when he communicated his information to the police was unaware that a reward had been offered; and upon that ground he entered judgment for the defendant. The matter is now before us on appeal from that decision.

Now the plaintiff's case, as presented in the Court below and to us, depends upon the establishment of a contractual relationship between himself and the defendant. And it is necessary, therefore, to enquire what was the legal effect of the published offer, and under what circumstances its acceptance would constitute a contract between the parties. The offer was to all the world to pay £500 to any person giving to the C.I.D information which should lead to the arrest of the criminals and the recovery of the property. In order that it might ripen into a contract it was necessary that the offer should be accepted. Under ordinary circumstances the direct communication of the acceptance to the

Innes, C.J.

person making the offer is essential to the constitution of a contractual vinculum. But it is always open to the offeror to indicate any special channel of communication, or any special mods in which acceptance may be manifested. And that is what the defendant company in effect did. It promised to pay any who gave information of a certain kind to the C.I.D. In other words, it announced that the offer might be by communicating the information to the proper quarter. But this indication of a special mode of acceptance did not do away with the necessity for acceptance itself. In order to establish a legal tie between the parties, the information would have to be given, in consequence of the advertisement, by a person acting on the faith of the offer. Otherwise there could be no contractual privity; the animus contrahendi on the part of the person giving the information would be wanting; and he could not be the acceptor of the offer because he did not under the circumstances intend to accept anything. This position results from an...