COMMUNICATION OF OFFER

Laxman Shukla V Gauri Dutt (1913) 11 All LJ 489

Facts- In this case, the nephew of the defendant (Gauri Dutt) went missing.
So the defendant directed his servant to look for him. Initially, as the servant was unable to
find the boy, the defendant issues a handbill that stated that any person who would finds the
boy will be rewarded. Incidentally, the plaintiff himself finds the boy. Subsequently, when
the plaintiff came to know of the offer made by his master, he brought upon an action against
him to provide him the reward.

Judgement- The Allahabad HC however held that defendant could not claim rewards from
the plaintiff as his knowledge of the offer was only after he traced the missing boy.

Ratio Decendi- As stated in section (4) of the ICA, communication regarding the offer is also
important. It states that communication can only be complete when the person to whom it is
made is knowledgeable of what is being communicated.
Both knowledge and assent are required to turn an offer into an agreement. Both were lacking
in the given situation.
There was no legitimate contract between the two because the plaintiff had no knowledge of
the offer and had not given his assent or accepted it.
INTENTION LEGAL
WHY INTENTION
TEST OF INTENTION
1. Test of Objectivity
2. Rebuttal Presumption
SOCIAL AGREEMENTS
AGREEMENT BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE
Balfour v Balfour 1919 2KB 571 [NO INTENTION]
Facts- In this case, husband and wife were happily living in England. One fine day, the
husband had to leave for Ceylon for his work and because of poor health condition of his
wife, he said her to live in England and promised her to pay£30 every month. He sent for
some time, but afterwards, differences arouse between them and one fine day, Mr Balfour
wrote a letter to his wife stating they should live apart and stopped giving her £30 monthly.

Ratio Decendi/RULE- Whenever two parties enter into an agreement, to make that
agreement legally enforceable or a valid contract, there must be the legal intention of
parties to enter”. And this condition of legal enforceability is stated in sec 10 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872. This means at the time of making the promise both the party should be
aware of the thing that at the breach of anyone, the other can move to the court.

JUDGEMENT- “The agreement between the Balfours was not a legally enforceable
contract but merely an ordinary domestic agreement which is not enforceable before the
court of law. Also, there was no legal intention to create legal relationship and hence Mr
Balfour can’t be sued for the alleged crime.”

McGregor v McGregor (1888) LR 21 QBD 424 [INTENTION]

A husband and wife decided to withdraw their complaints in exchange for the husband
promising to pay her an allowance and her not pledging his credit. This agreement was found
to be a legally binding agreement.

Merritt v Merritt 1970 1 WLR 211 (CA) [ INTENTION]

The most crucial fact about this case is that in this case, the husband had abandoned his wife.
The husband agreed to pay £40 per month as maintenance, with the wife paying the mortgage
with the remainder. He planned to move the house from joint names to the wife's name once
the mortgage was paid off. He scribbled it down and signed the document, but afterwards
refused to transfer the property.
It was established that when the agreement was made between them, both the couple were
already estranged and hence any agreement between them had to be regarded lawful in nature
in this scenario.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARENT AND CHILD
Jones v Padavatton 1969 1 WLR 328 [ NO INTENTION]
Mrs Jones offered her daughter a monthly allowance in 1962 if she would leave her work in
America and come to England to study to be a barrister.
Mrs Jones purchased a property in London where her daughter stayed and got rent from other
renters due to housing issues. In 1967, they had a falling out, and Mrs Jones claimed the
house, despite the fact that her daughter had failed half of her exams.
The first agreement to study was deemed to be a family arrangement that was not intended to
be legally enforceable. Even if it was, it could only be for a reasonable period of time, which
in this case was five years. The second pact was strictly a familial agreement with no purpose
of establishing legal ties. As a result, the mother was exempt from the maintenance
agreement and had the right to claim the house.
Simpkins v Pays (1955) 1 WLR 975 [ INTENTION]
In this case, the defendant, her granddaughter, and the plaintiff, a paying lodger together
made entries for a crossword puzzle game in the name of the defendant. A prize of £750 was
won but the defendant refused to divide the whole prize which led to the plaintiff filing a suit.
The presence of the outsider (paying guest) was considered to disprove the premise that it
was a familial arrangement that was not intended to be legally enforceable. The mutual
agreement was a collaborative venture in which money was contributed in exchange for a
share of any award. And hence the agreement was considered to have a legal intention.
Parker v Clarke (1960) 1 WLR 286 [ INTENTION]
In this case, Mrs Parker was the niece of Mrs Clarke. The Parkers agreed to sell their home
and move in with the Clarkes after reaching an arrangement. Mrs Clarke sent a letter to the
Parkers outlining the expenses and confirming the agreement. The Parkers moved in after
selling their home. However, The Clarks told the Parkers that their arrangement was failing
and that they would have to leave. The Parkers filed a lawsuit for breach of contract.
The court held that there was an element of legal intention between the parties as evident
from the letter issued by Mrs Clarks and the circumstances where Mrs Parker sold their
house.

GENERAL OFFER
Weeks vs Tybald 1605 Noy 11:74 ER 982
In this case, the defendant offered to pay 100, who married his daughter with his assent. The
plaintiff married his daughter with his assent. However, the defendant denied paying the said
amount.
The court, in this case, said- “It is not averred nor declared to whom the words are spoken.”
And hence the offeree can’t claim damages.
This was however soon overruled.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893 1 QB 256 (CA)

In this case, Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (defendant) advertised in a gazette to give 1000 pounds
to all those who caught influenza after consuming their balls three times a day for two weeks.
After seeing this advertisement, Mrs Carlill (plaintiff) consumed their product for the said
period of time and subsequently caught influenza.
Refusal by the defendant to pay led to the plaintiff filing a suit.
The Court exposed the fallacy that an offer could not be made to the whole world, introduced
the concept of General Offer, and hence made the defendant liable to pay the same to the
plaintiff.
Har Bhajan Lal v Har Charan Lal AIR 1925 All 539
This case gives an illustration for section 8 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872: Performance of
the conditions of a proposal or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise
which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal.
In this case, the son of the defendant ran away from his home. The father subsequently issued
a pamphlet offering to pay Rs 500 to anyone who finds his son.
The plaintiff was in a Dharamsala, there he found the boy and as he overheard about the
pamphlet, telegrammed the father stating he has found and asked for a reward. When the
same was denied by the defendant, the court held that the handbill was an offer open to the
whole world and it can be accepted by anyone who fulfilled the condition of the offer and
hence plaintiff was entitled to the reward.
INVITATION TO OFFER AND OFFER
Harvey v Facey 1893 AC 552
In this case, the plaintiff telegraphed to the defendants, asking two questions:
“Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen?”
“Telegraph lowest cash price.”
The defendant replied, “Lowest price for the pen is 900 pounds.” However, later when the
plaintiff asked for the pen, the defendant denied it.
The Lordship, in this case, was of the opinion that mere statement of informing the prize for
the pen cannot be considered as acceptance because when a party just state the terms on
which he is willing to negotiate and not express his final willingness, he is said to make an
invitation to offer and not an offer perse.
Similar case in India- Col.D.I. Mc Pherson v M.N. Appanna AIR 1951 SC 184.
Announcement to hold an auction – Invitation to offer

https://www.taxmann.com/post/blog/consideration-under-the-indian-contract-act-1872
https://lawcirca.com/acceptance-and-modes-of-acceptance-under-indian-contract-act-1872/

1. Balfour Vs. Balfour,

2. McGregor Vs. McGregor,
3. Weeks Vs. Tybald,
4. Powell Vs. Lee,
5.Harvey Vs. Facey,
6. Haji MuhhammadVs. Spinner,
7.Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society Vs. Shyam Sunder,
8. FelthouseVs. Bindley
9. Richardson Vs. Rowntree,
10. L. Estrange Vs. Graucob,
11. Henderson Vs. Stevenson,
https://www.taxmann.com/post/blog/what-is-discharge-of-a-contract-under-indian-contract-act-1872-
featuring-case-studies/ DISCHARGE

12. Mrs. Hairs Vs. Great Western Railway Company,

13.MackillicanVsCompagnie des Messageries Maritime de France,
14. CarlillVs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company,
15. Harbhajanlal Vs. Harcharanlal,
16.LalmanShuklaVs. GauriDutt,
17. Durga Prasad Vs. Baldeo,
18. KedarNathVs. GorieMuhhammad,
19. Dutton Vs. Poole,
20. TweddleVs. Atkinson,
21. ChinnayaVs. Rammaya,
22. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres Company Vs. Selfridge Company,
23. Khwaja Muhhammad Vs. Hussaini Begum,
24. Dunlop Vs. Higgins,
25. MohoriBibiVs. DharamdasGhose,
26. Sadik Ali Khan Vs. Jai Kishore,
27. Raffles Vs. Wichelhaus,
28. CundyVs. Lindsay,
29. Amiraju Vs. ChikhamSheshamma,
30. Ranganayakamma Vs. AlwarSetti,
31. AllcardVs. Skinner, 32. Derry Vs. Peek,
33. Oceanic Stem Navigation Company Vs. SoonderdasDharamsey,
34. Oriental Banking Corporation Vs John Fleming,
35. Bell Vs. Lever Brothers ltd.,
36. MadhubChanderVs. Raj Coomar,
37. BabasahebVs. Rajaram,
38. Frost Vs. Knight,
39. HochsterVs. De la Tour,
40. Soltan Chand Vs. Schiller