Case Summary
| Citation | Lalman shukla V Gauri Datt ( 1913) XL ALJR 489) Case Analysis |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | In this case, the defendant Gauri Dutt’s Nephew had absconded and was nowhere to be found. After the defendant became aware of the same, Dutt had sent all the servants in search of the missing nephew. The plaintiff Lalman Shukla was one of the servants who had gone out in search of the nephew. The plaintiff eventually found him and brought him back. When Lalman Shukla had left the house to leave for Haridwar from Kanpur he was handed some money for his railway fare and other expenses. As soon as Lalman Shukla had left the house, the defendant announced a reward of Rs. 501 for whosoever found Dutt’s nephew. |
| Issues | Whether Lalman Shukla was entitled to get the reward from Gauri Dutt for tracing the missing boy. Whether there was a valid acceptance of the offer made by the plaintiff. Whether there exists a contract or whether the situation amounts to a contract between the two. Shukla had no idea that such an announcement was made.− He found the nephew and brought − Six months after the said incident occurred, Dutt sacked the plaintiff. After being removed from the job, the plaintiff claimed the money from the defendant and the latter denied to pay the said remuneration. The plaintiff was in the service of the defendant. Duty and obligation was on him to search the boy. He obliged to duty before the handbill of reward was offered . Gauri Dutt argumentSection 2( a) Section 2 ( b) If there is intent to accept , the contract arises upon performance of the requested services during the continuance of the offer and the offeree is then entitled to the reward promised . |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | Section 8 of Indian contract act 1872 Acceptance by performing conditions, or receiving consideration . |
| Judgment | In the said case, the petitioners’ appeal against the respondent Gauri Dutt was dismissed by the court. Here, the plaintiff did not know the reward before performing his act. He only came to know about it later, in which case there was no possibility of accepting the offer. Hence, there was no contract. Therefore, Lalman Shukla was not entitled to get or claim the reward. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority | To have complete knowledge of the facts of the offer or proposal Acceptance of the offer A person to whom the offer is made, the offeree, must accept the proposal. The communication regarding the offer is also very important as mentioned in section (4) of the ICA. It states that communication can only be complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. To convert a proposal into an agreement both knowledge and assent must be present. Here, in the given instance, both were missing. As the plaintiff had no knowledge and hadn’t given his approval or accepted the proposal there did not exist a valid contract between the two. At the time when the plaintiff was searching for the boy, his obligations and duties were as a servant. Therefore the plaintiff Lalman Shukla was not entitled to get the award. |
Full Case Details
BANERJI, J. – The facts of this case are these:- In January last the nephew of the
defendant absconded from home and no trace of him was found. The defendant sent his
servants to different places in search of the boy and among these was the plaintiff, who was
the munim of his firm. He was sent to Hardwar and money was given to him for his railway
fare and other expenses. After this the defendant issued hand-bills offering a reward of Rs.
501 to any one who might find out the boy. The plaintiff traced the boy to Rishikesh and
there found him. He wired to the defendant who went to Hardwar and brought the boy back
to Cawnpore. He gave the plaintiff a reward of two sovereigns and, afterwards, on his return
to Cawnpore, gave him twenty rupees more. The plaintiff did not ask for any further payment
and continued in the defendant’s service for about six months, when he was dismissed. He
then brought the suit, out of which this application arises, claiming Rs. 499 out of the amount
of the reward offered by the defendant under the hand-bills issued by him. He alleged in his
plaint that the defendant had promised to pay him the amount of the reward in addition to
other gifts and travelling expenses when he sent him to Hardwar. This allegation has been
found to be untrue and the record shows that the hand-bills were issued subsequently to the
plaintiff’s departure for Hardwar. It appears, however, that some of the defendant’s hand-bills
were sent to him there.
The Court below having dismissed the claim, this application for revision has been made
by the plaintiff and it is claimed on his behalf that, as he traced out the boy, he is entitled to
the reward offered by the defendant.
The learned advocate for the defendant contends that the plaintiff’s claim can only be
maintained on the basis of contract; that there must have been an acceptance of the offer and
an assent to it, that there was no contract between the parties in this case and that, in any case,
the plaintiff was already under an obligation to do what he did and was, therefore, not entitled
to recover. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that a privity of
contract was unnecessary and that neither motive nor knowledge was essential. The learned
Counsel for the plaintiff relies on the case of Williams v. Carwardine [(1833) 4 B. & A. 621]
and Gibbons v. Proctor [(1891) 64 L.T. 594]. These cases no doubt support the contention of
the learned Counsel and the result of them seems to be that the mere performance of the act is
sufficient to entitle the person performing it to obtain the reward advertised for. These cases
have, however, been adversely criticised by Sir Frederick Pollock (Law of Contracts, 8th
Edn., pp. 15 and 22) and by the American author Ashley (in his Law of Contracts, pp. 16, 23
and 24). In my opinion, a suit like the present can only be founded on a contract. In order to
constitute a contract, there must be an acceptance of offer and there can be no acceptance
unless there is a knowledge of the offer. Motive is not essential but knowledge and intention
are. In the case of a public advertisement offering a reward, the performance of the act raises
an inference of acceptance. This is manifest from Section 8 of the Contract Act, which
provides that “performance of the conditions of a proposal is an acceptance of the proposal.”
As observed by Ashley in his work on Contracts already referred to, “if there is intent to accept, the contract arises upon performance of the requested service during the continuance
of the offer and the offeree is then entitled to the reward promised” (p. 23). Where, therefore,
an advertisement offering a reward for the performance of a particular act is published, and
the act is performed, there is a complete contract and a claim for the reward arises on the
basis of the contract.
In the present case, however, the claim cannot be regarded as one on the basis of a
contract. The plaintiff was in the service of the defendant. As such servant he was sent to
search for the missing boy. It was, therefore, his duty to search for the boy. It is true that it
was not within the ordinary scope of his duties as a munim to search for a missing relative of
his master, but when he agreed to go to Hardwar in search of the boy he undertook that
particular duty and there was an obligation on him to search for and trace out the boy. Being
under that obligation, which he had incurred before the reward in question was offered, he
cannot, in my opinion, claim the reward. There was already a subsisting obligation and,
therefore, the performance of the act cannot be regarded as a consideration for the
defendant’s promise. For the above reasons, I hold that the decision of the court below is
right and I dismiss this application with costs.
