Introduction



This case was about the examination of the validity of a contract if there exists no acceptance. The parties of this case were Lalman Shukla, the plaintiff and Gauri Dutt, the defendant.


    


Facts of the Case



1. The nephew of Gauri Dutta (the defendant) absconded from his house


2. After such an incident, Gauri Dutta sent Lalman Shukla (the plaintiff), who was the servant of Gauri Dutta for tracing his missing nephew


3. After Lalman Shukla had left, Gauri Dutta announced a reward of Rs 501 to the person who finds the missing boy


4. Without knowing such announcement of reward, Lalman Shukla found the missing nephew of Gauri Dutt


5. Lalman Shukla claimed the reward money from Gauri Dutta


6. Gauri Dutta denied paying the reward money of Rs 501 to Lalman Shukla


7. As a consequence of such denial, Lalman Shukla brought an action against Gauri Shukla for recovering the reward money 





Issue of the case



Does Lalman Shukla have the right to get the reward money from Gauri Dutta for finding the missing boy?





Rule



According to section 2 (a) of the  Contract Act 1872 (the act), when a person signifies to another person his or her willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, intending to obtaining the consent of that other person to such act of abstinence, he or she is said to make a proposal. 


Section 2 (b) contends that when the person, to whom the proposal has been made signifies his or her assent to the proposal or offer, it is to be said as acceptance. 


On the other hand, section 2 (h) states that an agreement is to be said as a contract if such an agreement is enforceable by law.


Thus, Offer + Acceptance = Agreement


and Agreement + Enforceable by Law = Contract


Section 3 of the aforementioned act states that the proposal must be communicated to the person who is expected to accept the offer. 


Analysis



In the case of Lalman Shukla Vs Gauri Dutta, the plaintiff (Lalman Shukla) contended that the missing boy had been found by himself, and according to the condition of the defendant (Gauri Dutta), he is entitled to the declared reward. Here, the plaintiff had found the boy after the reward was declared by the defendant. The plaintiff was not aware of the offer proposed by the defendant. Thus, there was no possibility for Lalman Shukla (the plaintiff) to accept the offer of the defendant. As there was no acceptance, there was no agreement, which can be said as enforceable by the law under section 2 (h) of the act. On the other hand, there was no communication made to the plaintiff for accepting the proposal, thus, section 3 of the act is also to be stated as ineffective in this case.





Conclusion





Honourable court (Allahabad High Court) held that Lalman Shukla, the plaintiff had no knowledge regarding the offer made by the defendant at the time when the plaintiff discovered the missing boy. Moreover, there was no communication to the plaintiff (Lalman Shukla) about the reward before he found the missing nephew of Gauri Dutta. Here court also held that a contract without acceptance is void. Hence, there was no valid contract between the plaintiff and defendant, which can be enforceable by law. On the basis of this observation, the court held that the plaintiff of this case was not entitled to the reward.





Bibliography