An offer must be one capable of creating legal relationship between the parties

Karthik.T | Sastra Deemed University Thanjavur | 7th July 2020

Simpkins Vs Pays

FACTS:

The plaintiff was living in the defendant’s house as a lodger for a year. He almost became a family member of the family circle of the defendant. The plaintiff, defendant, the defendant’s granddaughter used to send a separate entry on one coupon to the fashion competition which was appearing in the Sunday newspaper which was offered a prize amount for a successful winner. Each of the three provided forecasts and the coupon was filed up by the plaintiff consolidating three forecasts and was sent to the newspaper in the name of the defendant. The cost of the postage and entry were informally shared by all of them. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that any money that is to be worn on the coupon sent by them from time to time will be shared by them. The granddaughter of the defendant was however not present at the time when the arrangement to share the money was made, but the plaintiff and the defendant knew that she would join the arrangement. The coupon sent on 27/06/1954 based on the current forecast made by the defendant’s granddaughter fetched the price 750 pounds. The defendant who received the prize refused to pay 1/3rd of the price to the plaintiff on the ground that the arrangement to share the wining was arrived at in a family association and therefore it was not intended to give rise to legal consequences. so the plaintiff filed this suit to recover the money which was won by them.

ISSUES:

Whether the plaintiff is liable to get the winning money from the defendant?

PLAINTIFF CONTENTION:

The plaintiff contended that the defendant is liable to pay the winning money as there is a contract between them. As they agreed to share the money among them.

DEFENDANT CONTENTION:

The defendant contended that there is no contract between them so he is not liable to pay the money.

OBSERVATION:

The court observed that the initial amount was shared between them from that time itself there is an offer and that offer is accepted by them and the contract took place when the sent the shared money to the newspaper. The prize money declared and all the three should share the money. Now the defendant refused to give the money to the two-member which amount to a breach of contract. 

JUDGMENT:    

The court held that the defendant is liable to pay the prize money to the plaintiff which is 1/3rd ie 250 pounds. As there is a breach of contract.