This case brief is written by Sanskriti Goel, a 1st year law student from Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies and School of law, GGSIPU.
(1913) 11 ALJ 489
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 :
Section 2(a): When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, to obtain the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal.
Section 2(b): When a person to whom the proposal is made, signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise.
Section 2(d): When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
Section 8: Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal.
- The nephew of the defendant had absconded from home. He was nowhere to be found. The defendant sent his servants to various places in search of his nephew.
- The plaintiff was one of the servants of the defendant and he was sent to Haridwar in search of the boy. He was given money for his travel fare and other expenses.
- While the search for the boy was still going on, the defendant issued handbills offering a reward of ₹501 to anyone who might find his nephew and bring the boy back home.
- The plaintiff succeeded in tracing the boy and brought him back to the defendant. As the plaintiff was unaware of the reward offered, he did not ask for it and continued working for the defendant.
- After about 6 months, due to some disputes, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff from the job.
- Afterward, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant claiming the reward of ₹501 that was due to him.
Contentions of the Parties
The plaintiff contended that the very performance of the task assigned to him was sufficient consideration for the defendant’s promise since the plaintiff had successfully traced the boy and brought him back home and thus fulfilling the defendant’s conditions.
He affirmed that neither motive nor knowledge of the offer was not essential and hence, he was entitled to the reward.
The defendant argued that there was no contract between the parties as there was no acceptance of the offer.
He also argued that the plaintiff, being his servant, was under an obligation to perform the task assigned to him, and therefore, such performance cannot be regarded as sufficient consideration for the defendant’s promise.
- Was there a valid acceptance to constitute a legally binding contract?
- Was the plaintiff entitled to the reward that was offered by the defendant for tracing the boy?
- Did tracing of the boy by the plaintiff can be regarded as sufficient consideration for the defendant’s promise?
Ratio of the Case
In the case of Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt, it was held that there can be no acceptance unless there is knowledge of the offer.
Although in the present case, the offer was a general offer where merely fulfilling the conditions of the offer itself is treated as an acceptance to create a contract but, fulfilling the conditions under the present case cannot be regarded as acceptance of the offer due to lack of knowledge of the offer.
Decision of the Allahabad High Court
The High Court observed that “A suit like the present can only be found on a contract. To constitute a contract, there must be an acceptance of the offer and there can be no acceptance unless there is knowledge of the offer. Motive is not essential but knowledge and intention are. Moreover, there was already a subsisting and therefore, the performance of the act cannot be regarded as a consideration for the defendant’s promise.”
Consequently, the suit was dismissed and the defendant was held not liable to pay the reward to the plaintiff.
- ADVANCED CERTIFICATE COURSE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS BY LEXPEEPS; DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR FIRST TEN LEARNERS ; Hurry Up or you will loose the opportunity !
- Job Post: Godrej is looking for Senior Legal Manager
- Job Post: Senior Associate-Legal at Elevate
- Job Post: Legal Counsel at Revolut
- Job Opportunity at Stripe: Regulatory Counsel
- Job Post: BOOM BUSINESS CONSULTING SOLUTIONS- Contract Documentation Officer
- Job Post: JLL is Looking for Senior Legal & Compliance Analyst
- Work opportunity at Coda Payments
- Job Post: Nestle is looking for Legal Counsel
- Job Opportunity at L.E.K. : Junior Legal Counsel
- Job Post: Chief Compliance Officer at Facebook
- Job Opportunity: Legal & Secretarial Manager at Medtronic
- CLAT-Peeps! (10)
- Current Affairs (2)
- competitions (8)
- Conferences and Seminars (92)
- Course and Workshops (54)
- Debates (24)
- Eassy Competitions (34)
- Fellowships & Scholarships (23)
- Guest Blogs (6)
- important (25)
- Internships and Jobs (863)
- interviews (8)
- moot court (64)
- Opportuintes (638)
- Job Opportunity (284)
- opportunity (1,176)
- other services (8)
- Our Blog (774)
- Administrative Law (14)
- ADR (10)
- Arms Act (2)
- Case Analysis (154)
- Company law (35)
- Constitutional Law (103)
- Consumer Protection Act (13)
- Contract Law (53)
- CPC (9)
- Criminal Law (110)
- Cyber Law (10)
- Environmental Laws (19)
- Evidence Act (20)
- Family Law (2)
- General (131)
- International Humanitarian Law (2)
- International law (18)
- IPR (4)
- Jurisprudence (10)
- labor laws (3)
- Partnership Act (2)
- personal law (31)
- Taxation (8)
- Tort (58)
- Transfer of Property (1)
- Top Stories (236)
- Uncategorized (277)
- October 2021 (85)
- September 2021 (177)
- August 2021 (192)
- July 2021 (393)
- June 2021 (293)
- May 2021 (179)
- April 2021 (61)
- March 2021 (46)
- February 2021 (56)
- January 2021 (63)
- December 2020 (86)
- November 2020 (94)
- October 2020 (146)
- September 2020 (220)
- August 2020 (173)
- July 2020 (165)
- June 2020 (119)
- May 2020 (136)
- April 2020 (7)
- February 2020 (37)
- January 2020 (3)
- November 2019 (1)