FACTS
The defendant Gauri Dutt's nephew went missing, prompting him to send out servants, including Lalman Shukla the plaintiff who was one of his servants, in search of him. Unaware of a subsequent Rs. 501 reward announcements, Shukla found and brought the nephew back. Six months later, Defendant dismissed plaintiff from his job. When plaintiff sought the promised reward, Defendant refused to pay. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a case against defendant for the unpaid remuneration, claiming entitlement to the reward for locating and bringing back the missing nephew.
ISSUES
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the reward from the defendant?
Whether is there any valid acceptance given by the plaintiff to the defendant?
JUDGMENT
The Allahabad High Court determined that a valid contract requires knowledge and agreement with the offer. In this case, the plaintiff was unaware of the reward before performing the required act. As he learned about it later, there was no opportunity for him to accept the offer, resulting in the absence of a contract. The court argued that the plaintiff was fulfilling his duty as a servant by finding the missing boy, therefore he is not entitled to claim the reward.
留言