LALMAN SHUKLA VS GAURI DUTT
Citation:1913 40 ALJ 489 [ Civil Revision No. 10 of 1913 ]
Bench: Justice Banerji
Date of Judgment: 17th of April, 1913.
- This case is about the examination of the validity of a contract if there exists no acceptance.
Facts of the case:
- Gauri Dutt, The nephew of the defendant, was absconded from his wife. Thus, Gauri Dutt sent his servants to find his nephew. All the servants were sent and were given traveling and all the other expenses. Lalman Shukla, the plaintiff, who was also a servant was also sent to Haridwar.
- For a long time, the nephew was not found therefore, the defendant subsequently advertised a reward of Rs. 501/- to anyone who will find his nephew.
- Meanwhile, the plaintiff found the boy in Rishikesh and brought him back. The defendant awarded the servant with two sovereigns in Haridwar and Rs. 20/- when he came back home.
- The servant continued his work and did not demand any further payment.
- After six months, the servant was dismissed from his service. Then the plaintiff claimed the award i.e. Rs. 499/- were due to him in respect of public advertisement for his nephew by the defendant.
Judgment: It was clearly established that
Firstly, assent or acceptance is a must for converting a proposal into an enforceable contract.
Secondly, parties must have knowledge about the proposal, without knowledge of the proposal it can not be converted into an agreement.
It was held by the Honorable Court that assent and knowledge about a proposal are must in order to convert a proposal into an enforceable agreement. And in this case, the plaintiff was neither aware nor has assent about the particular act or any reward.
So, the appeal was dismissed. And it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim a reward for finding the missing boy.
I am regular reader, how are you everybody? This piece of writing posted at this web site is truly fastidious.|