A’s nephew has absconded from his home. He sent his servant to trace his missing nephew. When the servant had left, A then announced that anybody who discovered the missing boy, would be given the reward of Rs. 500. The servant discovered the missing boy without knowing the reward. When the servant came know about the reward, he brought an action against A to recover the same. But his action failed. It was held that the servant was not entitled to the reward because he did not know about the offer when he discovered the missing boy. Name the case on reading the facts

All India Bar Examination (AIBE) 5-V Previous Year Question Papers with Answers

Practice Mode:

50.

A’s nephew has absconded from his home. He sent his servant to trace his missing nephew. When the servant had left, A then announced that anybody who discovered the missing boy, would be given the reward of Rs. 500. The servant discovered the missing boy without knowing the reward. When the servant came know about the reward, he brought an action against A to recover the same. But his action failed. It was held that the servant was not entitled to the reward because he did not know about the offer when he discovered the missing boy. Name the case on reading the facts

A: Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt

B: Donogue v. Stevenson

C: Tweedle v. Atkinson

D: Dutton v. Poole

The answer is: A

<< Previous Question

Next Question >>

Explanation

The correct option is A. Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt.

This is the case that matches the facts given in the question. It was decided by the Allahabad High Court in 1913, and it is a landmark case on the validity of a contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court held that the plaintiff, Lalman Shukla, was not entitled to the reward offered by the defendant, Gauri Dutt, for finding his missing nephew, because he did not know about the offer when he performed the act. The court also held that there was no valid acceptance of the offer by the plaintiff, as he did not communicate his intention to accept it. The court also held that there was no contract between the parties, as there was no meeting of minds or consensus ad idem. The court also observed that the offer was not a general offer, but a specific offer to a particular class of persons, namely the servants of the defendant.