A law case study on Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Dutt, an issue between them for denial of the unaware promised gift for finding the Lalman Shukla's Nephew.

1. CASE LAW
LALMAN SHUKLA VS
GAURI DUTT
BY
Dhamodharan M

2. The nephew of one Gauri Dutt absconded from his home in Kanpur. For
several days, no trace of him could be found. Gauri Dutt gave money to her
servants for railway fares and other expenses, and sent them to different
places in search of the boy. One of the servants, Lalman Shukla, the
munim(accountant) in Gauri Dutt’s firm, was sent to Haridwar. Later, after the
servants had left, Gauri Dutt issued handbills offering a reward of RS.501 to
anyone who might find the boy. She sent some handbills to Lalman Shukla
also, in Haridwar. Lalman traced the boy up to Rishikesh and found him there.
The boy was brought home. Gauri Dutt gave Lalman Shukla Rs.20 for having
found the boy. Lalman must have been upset with the denial of the promised
amount of Rs.501. Next, we learn that Lalman ceased to be in the
employment of Gauri Dutt and filed a suit for the recovery of RS.501, the
amount promised in the handbill.
SUMMARY

3. JUDGEMENT

Judgement on this case was made by Allahabad High Court in the year 1913.

The trial court dismissed the suit on the basis that:
i. that the offer of reward was announced after the plaintiff had left; and
ii. there was no subsequent promise to pay the reward.

In revision, the Allahabad High Court, affirmed (ii) but rejected (i).

The Court held:
Being under that obligation which he had incurred before the reward in question was offered, he cannot, in my
opinion, claim the reward. There was already a subsisting obligation and therefore the performance of the
act cannot be regarded as consideration for the defendant’s promise. [p 493]

Thus, the judgement was made in favour of the defendant Mrs. Gauri Dutt and the plaintiff Mr. Lalman
Shukla lost any rights to the reward because:
i. He was unaware of the offer at the time, thus he had never accepted the offer at all.
ii. He had a separate prior commitment made with the defendant to carry out the task, although it was not
necessarily under his job scope. However, this prior agreement did not mention any benefits that the
plaintiff would receive upon successfully finishing this task. This agreement is in direct conflict to plaintiff's
claim made later, hence precedence should be given to terms stated in prior agreement.

4. Indian Contract Act,
1872

5. LEGAL CONCEPTS

As per Indian Contract Act, 1872

Section 2(a):
When one person signifies to another his/her 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/she is said to make a proposal.

Section 2(h):
An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.

Offer + Acceptance = Agreement

Agreement + Enforceable by Law = Contract

6. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ACT AND THE
CASE

ACT - Under Section 2(a) PROPOSAL
CASE - GAURI DUTT proposed a reward of Rs.501 to whomsoever found and
returned with her nephew. However, there was already a subsisting obligation
on the plaintiff's side prior to this proposal and therefore the performance of
the act cannot be regarded as consideration for the defendant’s promise.

ACT - Under Section 2(h) CONTRACT
CASE - Since LALMAN SHUKLA was unaware of the offer proposed by GAURI
DUTT, there can be no acceptance of the offer. Hence, there is a lack of
establishment of any agreement enforceable by law.

7. KEY FACTORS &
CONCLUSION

KEY FACTORS FOR INFERENCE AND ANALYSIS :

ACCEPTANCE

PRIOR COMMITMENTS

AWARENESS

PERFORMANCE

Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Dutt is a landmark case related to the Acceptance of a
Contract.

In the case elaborated earlier, it reinforces the concept of awareness of offer and
then the subsequent acceptance of it for an agreement to form.

Lack of awareness of the offer automatically makes an entity ineligible to
contemplate acceptance of the offer. Hence, any benefits arising out of the offer are
not necessarily applicable to such unaware entities.

Similarly, if commitments/agreement made prior to contract are in conflict(or are
varying) with one another, precedence goes to obligations/duty jointly agreed by
both parties at time of agreement. Thus, it is necessary to ensure that prior
agreements made jointly by both parties are not invalidated by current contract,
unless and until it is approved by both the stakeholders in concern.

8. THANK YOU