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.
Law Points
- Section 8 of Indian contract act 1872
- Acceptance by performing conditions, or receiving consideration .
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 argument
- Section 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 .
PRINCIPLES
Ratio Decidendi
- 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.
The judgement
- 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.
