Lalman Shukla Vs. Gauri Dutt (1913) !!!!

The case of *Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Dutt (1913)* is a cornerstone in contract law, teaching us a critical lesson:
**An offer must be communicated to the person accepting it for a valid contract to arise.**

A true example of how clarity and communication form the foundation of every legal and professional agreement. 📝💡

For more such content stay connected:
Website link- www.ledroitindia.in

WhatsApp- https://chat.whatsapp.com/DY0BPd5fnut9gIU6tAsNb2

1. LALMAN SHUKLA vs GAURI DUTT Lalman Shukla Vs. Gauri Dutt , (1913) 11 ALJ 489.,

2. Case ANALYSIS Introduction Lalman Shukla V. Gauri Dutt is stated as a landmark judgment for the validity of the contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The case was between Lalman Shukla, the plaintiff and Gauri Dutt , the defendant.The case was filed in the Allahabad high court in the year 1913 and was presided over by Justice Banerji at the Allahabad High Court. CASE DETAILS In the Allahabad High Court Civil Revision No: 10 of 1913 Citation : 1913) 11 ALJ 489 ( Appellants : Lalman Shukla Respondents : Gauri Dutt Decided on: April 17th, 1913 Bench: Justice Banerji

3. Background and facts of the case ## Nephew of the defendant ( Gauri Dutt ) absconded from his house in January 1913 and the defendant sent out all his servants to different places in order to find his nephew . ## Plaintiff ( Lalman Shukla ) was one among the servants working as munib who had been sent out to search for his master’s nephew . He was sent to Haridwar from Cawnpore ( Kanpur) on the expenses of the defendant where he was finally able to track down the lost child and for this accomplishment , he was given Rs 20 along with two sovereigns on his return to Cawnpore . While the searching was taking place , and the Plaintiff was in search of the child , the defendant issued a handbill offering a reward of Rs 501 to the person who would successfully trace down the child and the plaintiff had no idea of this reward . ## Later on , after 6 months of the incident taking place , the plaintiff brought a suit against his master claiming the prize money of Rs 499 stating that it was promised by his master that whoever would find his child would be entitled to this reward . He alleged his master of not providing the reward for the specific performance of his promise .

4. Rs 501 For finding the missing child announced by Gauri Dutt after the departure of Lalman Shukla to Haridwar in search of Child .

5. Issues Raised in the Case When the case was filed by the plaintiff in the lower court it was rejected. He then went on to file the case at the Allahabad High Court. The issues raised are as follows: # Whether there exists a contract ? # Whether the situation amounts to contract between the two ? # Whether the claim of Rs. 499 be provided or not? # Whether there was a valid acceptance of the offer made by the plaintiff ? # Whether the decision by the lower court was appropriate or not?

6. Plaintiff’ Contentions Lalman Shukla strongly contended that he was entitled to receive the reward money from Gauri Dutt as he found the missing nephew. 2. He stated that there is no need for prior knowledge emphasizing on Section 8 of Indian Contract Act 1872 which says, “Performance of the act or the acceptance of any consideration in a proposal is the acceptance of the proposal”. 3 . He said, “to have the knowledge of the condition was immaterial” 4 . The plaintiff argued in support of the following cases- Gibbons v. Proctor[1891] ( police advertising ) It was held by the Divisional Court that if a person performs certain conditions of an offer and completely unaware of the reward on completion of the requisites, he is bound to get the reward. Williams v. Carwadine [ 1833 ] ( Mrs. Mary informing police about murder of Mr. Carwadine’s Brother ) It was held that there exists a valid contract when the offer is accepted on accomplishing the ineluctable conditions entailed by the proposer through his proposal.

7. Defendant’s Contention 1 .The defendant strongly argued that the plaintiff had no knowledge about the offer and was not aware of it before finding the missing nephew. So an offer without the knowledge of the offeree cannot be accepted or there is no such condition where the plaintiff can accept the offer without its knowledge. 2. Gauri Dutt emphasized Section 2(a) which said, “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”. 3. Further on Section 2(b) said, “ 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 plaintiff had no knowledge about the offer made and there was no acceptance. So according to Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act 1872 , since there was no acceptance, there was no agreement to be enforced by a court of law. The defendant relied upon - Fitch v. Snedker [1868] (Unilateral Offer of reward for finding Dog ) He pleaded that the claim could be made only if the contract was made. While the plaintiff lacked acceptance to the provided offer due to which there is no occurrence of the contract. The claimant was not entitled to the reward because acceptance of an offer , in ignorance of offer , is no acceptance .

8. Important Sections in Focus 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 follows-“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 Act, 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 Section 4 of the contract act which defines about communication when complete . It says that the communication of a proposal is only complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.

9. Ratio Decidendi ( Rational for the Decision) In the present case of Lalman Shukla verses Gauri Dutt case, It is derived that in order to enter into the contract between two parties there has to be two things which are very essential for creating the contract: To have complete knowledge of the facts of the offer or proposal Acceptance to the offer A person to whom the offer is made that means the offeree must accept the proposal which is offered by the proposer and communication to the offer is also very important as mentioned in section (4) of the Indian contract act which states that the communication can only be complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made . In order to convert a proposal into an agreement both knowledge and assent must be present. Here in this present case both did not exist and was also missing. As the plaintiff had no knowledge and had also did not gave his approval and accepted the proposal which was offered by the defendant Gauri Dutt hence there did not exist a valid contract between the two parties. At the time of searching the boy the plaintiff was doing his obligations and duties as a servant. Therefore the plaintiff Lalman Shukla was not entitled to get the award . So he cannot claim it.

10. Case Analysis At the time of searching the missing boy the plaintiff Lalman Shukla was merely doing his duty as a servant . He was working as a servant and it was his duty to trace and find the missing boy and for that purpose he was sent from Haridwar to Kanpur. So as per the situation Lalman shukla is cannot be entitled to get the reward firstly because he was merely full filling his obligations and doing his duty as a servant . Secondly for there was no contract between both the parties or the contract did not exist as for a contract to be valid it has to be enforceable by law. And here there cannot be any possibility of acceptance without having the knowledge of facts . According to the judgement given in the Allahabad high court a contract without acceptance is void. So here we can see that Lalman Shukla is already under the obligation as a servant ( Munim ) and second aspect which attracted more focus is the issue of Non acceptance of the offer because of absence of knowledge of facts. However if Lalman Shukla get the copy of handbill issued by Gauri Dutt in Haridwar before the performance of the Act as claimed by him then also he was not entitled to reward because of master servant obligation.

11. JUDGEMENT In the case of Lalman Shukla verses Gauri Dutt case the petitioners appeal against the respondent Gauri Dutt was dismissed by the court. After analyzing all the facts of the case It was held by the honorable court that for creating or entering into a valid contract there has to be knowledge and assent to the offer being made by the proposer. There has to be proper acceptance or the offeree must give his approval before accepting which was absent in the present case. The plaintiff had no knowledge about the reward before performing his act . He came to know afterwards in which there is no possibility of accepting the offer. Hence there exist no contract so as a result the court came to the decision that the appellant Lalman Shukla was not entitled to get the reward without having any prior knowledge and information about the facts which restricts him to claim the reward. The judge said that Lalman Shukla was fulfilling his obligations as a servant of tracing the missing boy. It was a part of his duty which he was merely doing hence his suit against the defendant was completely dismissed by the court as there was no contract between both the parties.

12. JUDGEMENT .. The Court dismissed the appeal made by Lalman Shukla against Gauri Dutt . The Judge analyzed the facts of the case and said that to enter into a contract, there must be knowledge of the offer and acceptance of the said offer. Here both were missing, and the plaintiff fulfilled his duties as a servant to his master. Therefore, Lalman Shukla (plaintiff), was not entitled to get the reward money for searching Gauri Dutt’s missing nephew. 3. The case established intention to enter and perform the obligations as an essential part of Section 10 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 . The High Court very efficiently pointed out the limitations on the part of the appellant to provide a valid acceptance. The striking point about this judgement was that the definition of ‘consideration’ under Section 2 (d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not find a mention while deciding the case which would have otherwise raised more questions to answer while settling the principle in this case, on the assumption that the definition of consideration in Section 2(d) is the sam e as the English definition replete with elements of benefit and detriment.

13. Conclusion This judgment indeed is important for understanding the law of Contracts . It clarified that for an offer to be considered or accepted, knowledge and acceptance of the same is needed. This case discussed upon basic concepts of contract and vital elements of an agreement which are offer and acceptance. 3. 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 . So , this case covers the most important sections of the Indian Contract Act 1872 and the concept of Offer and Acceptance as well the important elements of the Offer and acceptance .

14. THANK YOU