BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:- The cited case deals with basic sections of the Indian contract Act 1872, which includes offer and acceptance as the basic ingredient of a valid contract. The very focus of the mentioned case significantly deals with the section 3 of the Indian contracts Act 1872 which affirms about the importance of communication in a valid contract.
CASE DESCRIPTION :- The defendant Gauri Dutt settled in the city of Cawnpore . The defendant’s nephew went missing on a certain day . He asks all of his servant to search for his nephew , the plaintiff Lalman shukla who happened to be one of the munibs working in the defendants firm was sent to Hardwar along with some maintenance for his railways expenses and fares to search for the boy. In the mean time the defendant Gauri Dutt publishes posters of his nephew all around the city declaring who ever finds his nephew is entitled to a reward of Rs. 501 . The plaintiff Shukla finally traces the boy in Rishikesh and brought him back to Cawnpore , the defendant rewarded shukla with two sovereigns and a twenty rupees on the return of his nephew. The plaintiff continued his service and continued working under him for a period of six months and he did not asked for the further payment . But when he was dismissed from his services, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant stating that he was entitled to the reward for finding his nephew , he claimed that the defendant promised him to pay the reward amount along with the payment for the travel expenses as well as additional gifts. The certain allegations were found to be false , baseless and untrue as the posters were issued after the departure of the plaintiff to hardwar but the plaintiff claimed that the posters were sent to him too.
So, the issues which were raised in the court of law were –
- Whether the defendant was entitled for the reward ?
- Whether there is need of acceptance to the offer for the binding of a contract ?
- Whether the contract is a valid contract or not?
The court dismissed the claims of the plaintiff on the contentions made by the defendant’s counsel , the counsel stated that claims can only be maintained when there is contract between any two parties or more , there needs to be an offer and relying upon the offer there needs to be an acceptance but here in this case the plaintiff was obligated for the task to find the boy, therefore he is not entitled for the reward. Further the plaintiff’s counsel contended that privity of a contract is absolutely irrelevant neither knowledge and motive are necessary for it.
The plaintiff’s counsel cited Williams v Carwardine[1] and Gibbons v Proctor[2] where in mere actions or performance of the parties constitutes of an offer and acceptance, as well as entitles the parties for the reward . In case of Public advertisements the declaration of a reward is an offer and performance for such an act regarding the advertisement affirms an acceptance, this contention has already been affirmed in the section 8 of the Indian contracts Act which states that “performance of the conditions of a proposal is an acceptance of the proposal.”[3] Were in a particular advertisement is made declaring a reward and a particular act has been performed to achieve the notion of the advertisement then the overall act in itself constitutes of a valid contact.
ANALYSIS
Based upon the arguments and contentions made by the counsels in this case , I feel the plaintiff is not entitled for the rewards he claimed for.
As in the present case , a mere claim cannot give rise to a valid binding contract. In the present case the plaintiff was obligated to do the certain work , neither there was any form of offer nor there was any form of acceptance. Thought the nature of the work for which the plaintiff was obligated for was beyond the scope of a munib as it is not a primary duty of a munib to search for a missing person but he gave his assent to go and search for the boy , he gave acceptance for the particular work he was assigned for. Moreover the advertisement or the declaration of the rewards was done after his departure to Hardwar and before that he had already assented to perform his assigned duty , therefore the performance of the act cannot be substantiated as an consideration in reference with the defendant’s promise .
In my opinion a very crucial part of a valid binding contract can only take place when an offer has been communicated to the subsequent party . It is the very basic element to constitute a contract , which has been stated in the section 3 of the Indian contracts Act 1872. In the present case the plaintiff was unaware of the advertisement as the declaration was made after he departed to Hardwar , he came to knew about certain thing as such reward after he came back to Cawnpore. Neither the Defendant ever exchanged any such words with the plaintiff nor he promised him for any such things.
As seen in the case of Carlil v carbolic smoke ball[4] and referring with to the present case it has been found that an appellant cannot claim for any such reward where there has been absence of the knowledge of the offer and prior to that if any acceptance has been assented to it won’t be considered to be a valid acceptance either. The same was also seen in the case of Ramchandra Chintaman v Kalu Raju [5] affirming about the absence of knowledge of offer.
CONCLUSION
Adhering to the principles of a general offer the court laid down the
requisite conditions for a valid contract , stating the important elements and
requirements such as offer, acceptance ,
communication of the offer and under what conditions such fundamentals of a
contract determine whether a party claiming for a certain reward is entitled
for it or not. Here the nature of the contract was little confusing and
ambiguous in nature as two contracts were clashing or overlapping each other , but
as such the plaintiff was never a party to the contract neither any
communication of offer was seen between both parties which could establish a
contract between them, though it was a mere general offer as it was accepted
before the communication of the offer , it never fell under the scope of
rewards as the plaintiff was obligated to do the task as given by his master
(defendant). The performance of the act with the absence of knowledge of offer
cannot be taken into consideration for the claim . Hence in my opinion I firmly
believe the court passed an order relying upon the relevant sections
of the Indian contracts Act 1872 and justified itself by denying the plaintiff
for the rewards.
[1] Williams v Carwardine [1833] 4B, & A, 621
[2] Gibbons v Proctor [1891] 64 L.T. 594
[3] Section 8 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872
[4] Carlil v carbolic smoke ball [(1893) 1 QB 256]
[5] Ramchandra Chintaman v Kalu Raju [1878 ILS 2 Bom 362]
All about Law! 