Without the knowledge of the proposal no one is entitled to get the reward

Barathkumar K M | Sastra Deemed to be University Thanjavur | 1st July 2020

Lalman Shukla Vs Gauri Datt 

Facts:

The plaintiff was a servant of the defendant. The defendant’s nephew has absconded from his house, to find his nephew the defendant had sent all his servants to different places to find his nephew. The plaintiff was also sent to found the nephew by the defendant. He was sent to Hardwar to search the boy. He found the nephew at Hardwar and he was rewarded of Rs.20 when he returned to Cawnpore. In between when the plaintiff was at the search of the nephew, the defendant whoever finds his nephew was rewarded of Rs.501. But the plaintiff did not know about the announcement. After six months the plaintiff had sued a case against his master claiming the reward of Rs.499. He alleged that his master failed to give the reward. 

Issues:

1. Whether there is a valid contract in this case?
2. Whether the defendant wants to par Rs.499 to the plaintiff?

Legal Provision:

Sec 2(h) and Sec 8 of the Indian Contracts Act

Plaintiff’s contention:

The plaintiff contended that the performance of the activity is sufficient to get the reward. The performing person doesn’t need to know the rewards. According to sec 8 of the Indian Contracts Act, the performance of a condition of the proposal is an acceptance of the proposal. The plaintiff fulfilled this condition and so he is entitled to get the reward.

Defendant’s contention:

The defendant contended that for a valid contract there must be an acceptance to the offer but in this case, the plaintiff did not know about the offer and so there is no acceptance in this case. Hence there is no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Observation:

It was observed that to fulfil a contract the knowledge of the proposal is necessary but in this case, the plaintiff didn’t have any knowledge about the proposal. For a valid contract firstly, acceptance is a must for converting the proposal into a valid contract. Secondly, the parties should know about the proposal and without the knowledge of the proposal, it cannot be converted into an agreement.

Judgment:

The court held that the knowledge and acceptance of a proposal are the basis of essential conditions for a valid contract. So the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the rewards for the finding of the missing boy.