Case Note:
Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt
G Mohammed Faisal
(20BLA1086)
Facts Of The Case:
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. Shukla had no idea that such an announcement was made. The plaintiff found the
missing nephew and brought him back to his home in Kanpur. 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. As a result the plaintiff Lalman Shukla filed
a case against Gauri Dutt, his master, for not rewarding him as he was entitled to.
Issues Raised In This Case:
The main issues which were raised in this case were as follows:
• 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.
Contentions of the parties
Petitioners
•It was strongly contended by the petitioner that the mere performance of the act was sufficient to
be deserving of the reward attached to such performance. According to them, it was immaterial
whether the person performing the act had the knowledge of the reward associated with or not.
•They referred to the Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states that the
performance of a condition of a proposal is an acceptance of the proposal and in the current case,
the condition was the whoever found the missing child of the defendant would be rewarded with
the promised amount and thus considering the provision he claimed to have fulfilled the
condition, hence the plaintiff is entitled to claim the reward.
Respondents
•The respondents contended that in order to convert an offer into a convert there must be
acceptance of that contract and assent is the basic essential to constitute a contract. At the time
he was tracing the boy he was not aware of the offer and therefore had not accepted the offer
which clearly doesn’t convert the offer into a valid contract between both the parties.
•It was argued that at the time he was tracing the boy, he was acting as a servant and thus
fulfilling his responsibilities and obligations which came with it and thus was sent to Hardwar
from Cawnpore.
Rule and Related case laws
Section 2(a) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines proposal as follows-
•“When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to
obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal.”
Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines a promise as follow
•“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.”
Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines a contract as follows-
•“An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.”
Section 3 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that-
•The proposal must be communicated to the person who is expected to accept the offer.
Section 8 of Indian Contract Ct, 1872 defines-
•“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.”
This means that-Offer + Acceptance = Agreement
Agreement + Enforceable by law = Contract
Judgement
It was held by the Hon’ble Court that the basic necessity is the knowledge and assent of a proposal in
order to convert a proposal into an enforceable agreement and in the present case none of the criteria
are being fulfilled as the plaintiff was not aware and there was no assent about the particular act. It
was also laid down by the judge that at the time the plaintiff was just fulfilling his obligations while he
was tracing the boy. Therefore the appeal was dismissed and it was decided by the court that the
plaintiff was not entitled to claim the reward for finding the missing child.
Conclusion
•This is a very important case of a general offer. Thus, it has helped lay down the important principles
of a general offer. In the case of a general offer, a contract is made with a person who has perfect
knowledge of the offer and comes forward and acts according to the conditions of the offer. An offer of
reward made by way of advertisement for finding lost articles is the most appropriate example of a
general offer as seen in this case also.
•Only the person who completes the task which has a reward attached to it can accept the offer.
Whereas, in the present case the offeror lacked acceptance and communication and hence, not entitled
to the reward in return
