Lalman
Shukla Vs GauriDutt Case (1913)
Equivalent
citation: 1913 40 ALJ 489
Author:J.
Banerjee
Bench:
J. Banerjee (Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court)
PETITIONER……………………………………….”
LALMAN SHUKLA”
V.
RESPONDENT…………………………………”
GAURI DUTT”
DATE
OF JUDGEMENT:17/04/1913
BENCH:
J.
BANERJEE (CJ OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
CITATION:
1913
40 ALJ 489
Introduction
Lalman Shukla vs. GauriDutt continues to be one
of the most widely cited cases in contract law. It was one of the earliest
cases in India dealing with the aspects of general offer, consent, and
acceptance. According to the facts of the case, the plaintiff failed to
communicate the offer and did not accept it, so Justice Banerji ruled that the
plaintiff is not entitled to the financial prize as a reward.The Indian
Contract Act was legislated in the year 1872, and this case of 1913 remains one
of the earliest cases in which the provisions of this act were weighed and
interpreted.The individual to whom the offer is made must be aware of it and
familiar with it.
Provisions of Law involved
The Indian Contract Act,1872, Section 2(a) read
with Section3, Section7(1), and Section 8 are at the center of the Lalman
Shukla v. GauriDutt case.According to Section 2 (a) of the Indian Contract Act
of1872, if a person expresses his willingness to do or refrain from doing an act
with the intent of obtaining the other person's approval of such abstention or
act, he is considered to have made a proposition.The proposal's communication
and acceptance are covered in Section 3 of the ICA, 1872.Section 7(1) states
that acceptance of the proposal must be unconditional and unequivocal, whereas
Section 8 states that acceptance of the proposal is defined as the performance
of the proposal's conditions or the acceptance of any consideration for a
reciprocal promise that may be presented with the proposal.
Issues
Raised In This Case
1.
Whether there was a contractual relation between the two?
2.
Whether Lalman Shukla was entitled to
get the reward from GauriDutt for tracing the missing boy?
3.
Whether there was a valid acceptance of
the offer made by the plaintiff?
Facts Of The Case:
In
the case Lalman Shukla vs GauriDutt(1913),the defendant GauriDutt’s Nephew was
absconded from his house at Cawnpore(Kanpur).
The boy's whereabouts were unknown. Following the occurrence, the defendant
GauriDutt dispatched all of her staff in search of her missing nephew, one of
which was the plaintiff Lalman Shukla, who had also gone in search of the
youngster to Haridwar.Assoon as Lalman Shukla left the residence, GauriDutt
made anannouncement that whosoever will find his missing nephew will be
rewarded a sum of Rs.501.Lalman Shukla was completely unaware of the
announcement. He had no knowledge that such announcement has been made. Lalman
Shukla found the missing nephew and brought him back to Cawnpore(Kanpur).6 months after the said incident,
GauriDutt fired Lalman Shukla. The Plaintiff claimed the amount of reward,
which the defendant refused to pay. He then brought a suit against GauriDutt
for not rewarding him the money as he was entitled to.
Contentions:
Arguments given by Petitioner
The Plaintiff argued that according to GauriDutt’s condition, whoever found the lost
boy and brought him back would get the reward. Therefore, as per the condition
of the defendant, the plaintiff had traced the boy and brought him back so he
was entitled to get the reward money.He stated that knowledge of the
reward was not necessary, especially in this situation. He further emphasized on the fact that Section 8 of Indian Contract
Act 1872, states that ‘the performance of the act or the acceptance of any
consideration of a proposal is an acceptance of the proposal’.
The Plaintiffs cited the example of Gibbons v.
Proctor, in which the Superintendent of Police offered a prize to anyone who
provided information about a criminal.Unaware of the prize, a police officer
provided useful information on the offender to the superintendent through a
third party.He learned about the incentive before the information was passed on
to the superintendent of police.As a result, the police officer claimed that he
should be given the award, and the court agreed that he should.Gibbons v.
Proctor established a precedent for the claim that an offer might be accepted
without knowledge or understanding of the offer.Williams v. Carwardine was
another case that demonstrated that knowledge of a general offer is not
required for acceptance.
Arguments given by Respondent
The
defendant (GauriDutt) stressed and emphasised her position stating that the
plaintiff, Lalman Shukla, was not aware of the offer in the first place.So an offer without the knowledge of the offeree or the
promise cannot be accepted and also there was no such possibility for the
plaintiff to accept the offer without even knowing about it. GauriDutt
emphasised that according to Section 2(a) of the Indian Contract Act 1872 when
one person signifies to another person his desire or willingness to do or to
not do something intending to obtain the assent of that person. To such act or abstinence,
he is said to make a proposal.
The defendant highlighted the case of Fitch v. Snedeker,
which included determining the principal suspect or perpetrator in a
murder.Fitch offered assistance in revealing the suspect's name.The Governor
issued a prize for anyone who might provide information on the perpetrator's
identify.Fitch was completely unaware of the reward until he revealed
information to the police about the perpetrator.He initiated a lawsuit in order
to claim and obtain the reward, but the court ruled that there could be no
acceptance of the offer if the offer was not made aware of or known about.
He
further stated that according to Section 2(b) of Indian Contract Act,1872,
When the 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” Therefore, the defendant contended that assent was essential to
create a contract between both parties. This means that before accepting
the offer both the parties must have complete knowledge about the facts to give
assent or approval. But in this particular case, the plaintiff was
completely unaware of the reward which was associated with it and the plaintiff
was merely performing his duty.
So,
there was no acceptance and since there was no acceptance, there was no
agreement which can be said as enforceable by law as per Section 2(h) of
Indian Contract Act,1872 which states that an agreement enforceable by law
is a contract.
Rational
In the present case of Lalman Shukla vs
GauriDutt, it is derived that in order to enter into a contract, these
conditions are essential,
1.
To have complete knowledge of the facts
of the offer or proposal
2.
Acceptance of the offer.
The offeree, must
accept the proposal. Communication of the offer is also very crucial,
as stated in Section (4) of the Indian contract Act,1872 which states
that communication can only be complete when the person to whom it is made is
aware of it.So in this case the essential conditions were not fulfilled.
At the time when
the plaintiff was searching for the boy, he was doing his duty as a servant and
hence the plaintiff Lalman Shukla was not entitled to get the award.
0 Comments