LANDMARK CASE

Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt

(1913) 11 ALJ 489 · Allahabad High Court · Contract law

At a glance

Citation: (1913) 11 ALJ 489
Court: Allahabad High Court
Area of law: Contract law
In one line: No. Acceptance requires knowledge of the offer, so there was no contract.

1 Facts

A servant found the master's missing nephew without knowing a reward had been announced.

2 Issue

Can a person claim a reward when they acted without knowing of the offer?

3 What the court decided

No. Acceptance requires knowledge of the offer, so there was no contract.

4 Why it matters

A classic case on offer and acceptance.

5 Think about it

Would the answer change if the servant learned of the reward halfway through the search?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Contract law

Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas AIR 1966 SC 543
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986) 3 SCC 156
Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2017) 14 SCC 80
Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass AIR 1963 SC 1405
Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.