4. Facts:
In this case, G (defendant) sent his servant l
(plaintiff) in search of his missing nephew. G
afterwards announced a reward for information
concerning the missing boy. It traced the boy in
ignorance of any such announcement.
subsequently when he came to know of this
reward, he claimed it.
5. Court Judgment:
It was held that since the plaintiff was ignorant of the
offer of reward, his Act of bringing the lost boy didn’t
amount to the acceptance of offer and therefore he was
not entitled to claim the reward.
6. My Opinion:
In the present case the claim cannot be regarded as one on the basis of a
contract. The plaintiff was in the service of the defendant. As such
servant he was sent to search for the missing boy. It is true that it was not
within the ordinary scope of his duties as a minim to search for a missing
relative of his master but he agreed to go to Hardwar in search of the boy
and he undertook that particular duty. Being under that obligation, which
he had incurred before the reward in question was offered, he cannot, in
my opinion, claim the reward. For the above reasons hold that the
decision of the Court below is right and I dismiss the application with
cost.
