Court: Allahabad High Court
Citation: (1913) 11 ALJ 489
Year: 1913
Facts: The defendant employed the plaintiff as a minimum-wage worker, and tasked him with finding the defendant’s missing nephew. While the plaintiff was away, the defendant distributed handbills promising a reward of Rs. 501 to whoever could locate the missing boy. The plaintiff eventually found the boy but was unaware of the handbills at the time. Upon returning, the plaintiff claimed the reward, which consisted of 2 sovereigns at Hardwar and Rs. 20 upon arrival back home. After discovering that the reward had been offered publicly, the plaintiff sued the defendant for the promised amount.
Issues:
- whether there is a contract in place or if the situation meets the criteria for a contract between the involved parties.
Judgement:
Upon scrutinizing all pertinent facts, the Honorable High Court arrived at a decision that a contract can only be considered legally binding if the proposer possesses the knowledge and consent of the offeree. In this particular case, the plaintiff was ignorant of the reward before performing the task, and hence had no opportunity to accept the offer. Consequently, there was no contract, and the plaintiff was not entitled to receive or demand the reward.