{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


The offeree it means that the offer has to be

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: the offeree in order that the offeree can accept it. According to section 4, “ the communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.” the If an offer has not yet been communicated, even if somebody acts according to the terms of the offer, he cannot be deemed to be the acceptor of the offer. Acting in ignorance of an offer does not amount to the acceptance of the same. This point may be explained by referring to the case of Lalman Shukla Vs. Gauri Dutt. (1913) (1913) In this case the defendant’s nephew absconded from In home. The plaintiff, who was defendant’s servant, was sent to search the missing boy. After the plaintiff had left in search of the boy, the defendant issued handbills announcing a reward of Rs. 501 /- to anyone who might find the boy. The plaintiff who was ignorant of this reward, was successful in searching the boy. When he came to know of the reward, which had been announced in his absence, he brought an action against the defendant to claim this reward. It was held that since the plaintiff was ignorant of the offer of reward, his act of bringing the lost boy did not amount to the acceptance of the offer, and therefore, he was not entitled to claim the reward. reward. If the plaintiff has the knowledge of the offer, his acting If in accordance with the terms thereof amounts to the acceptance of the same. In such a case it is immaterial that at the time of accepting the offer the acceptor does not intend to claim the reward mentioned in the offer. In Williams Vs. Carwardine (1833) the plaintiff who knew (1833) that the reward had been announced to be given to anyone who gave information leading to the conviction of an assailant for murder, gave the necessary information. While giving the information the plaintiff mentioned that she had giving given the information ‘to ease her conscience’. At that given ‘to time she did not intend to claim the reward. It was held that since the offer had been accepted with its knowledge, there was a valid contract and, therefore, she was entitled to claim the reward. claim Cross offers Cross When the offers made by two persons to each other When containing similar terms of bargain cross each other in post they are known as cross offers. For example, on 1st January A offers to sell his radio set to B for Rs. 500/through a letter sent by post. On the same date B also writes to A making an offer to purchase A’s radio set for Rs. 500 /- When A or B send their letters they do not know about the offer which is being made by the other side. In these cross offers, even though both the parties intend the same bargain, there arises no contract. A contract could arise only if either A or B , after having the knowledge of the offer, had accepted the same. the In (Tinn Vs. Hoffmann 1873), A wrote to B In (Tinn indicating his willingness to sell 800 tons of iron at 69 s. per ton. On the same day B also wrote to A offering to buy 800 tons of...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online