There is no limit to human greed; The infamous case of Lalman Shukla V Gauri Dutt Allahabad High Court (1913) is a nice example of this. Here are my 3 perspectives of the case. I don’t intend to critique their honorable judges’, or the Allahabad court’s interpretation of the law. The judgement was passed and the case has served as a basis for much future judgements. This also seem to be the most referred case in contract law in academics as well. We are doing a master’s in Business management and not even a course in Law. However, a considerable time was spent to refer and interpret this case in the class; the nuances of contract law is so complex; In this case a normal reader could question if the judgement has honored the human ethics. Has it? Are ethics honored in the judgement?
Here is a brief background of the case:
Lalman Shukla (the plaintiff), filed a case against Pt Gauri Dutt (the defendant), stating the defendant did not honour a contract. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant. The defendant’s nephew went missing from Kanpur a while before and the defendant asked his employees including Lalman Shukla, the plaintiff to search and locate his nephew. After sometime there was no success. As an incentive, the defendant announced that INR 501 will be paid to anyone who finds his nephew. This was publically advertised when the plaintiff was away searching. The plaintiff without the knowledge of the incentive, took effort to locate the nephew.
After locating, the plaintiff came to know about the incentive and claimed it. The defendant refused to pay the incentive promised in the advertisement. The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant, claiming that a contract has become effective and he need to pay the money.
The judgement:
This was eventually contested in the Allahabad High court; The plaintiff claimed that a privity to contract was not necessary; Neither motive nor a knowledge of the advertisement is required. The plaintiff has performed the requirements in the advertisement and it was sufficient to entitle a claim.
The defendant argued that there was no explicit acceptance of offer by the plaintiff; nor did the plaintiff had a knowledge of the contract, so the defendant need not pay the incentive.
The court inferred that in order for a contract to be present there should be an acceptance of the offer; An acceptance was impossible without the knowledge of offer. The court dismissed the application, mentioning that the right to consideration is possible only when there is a contract. A contract is possible only with a knowledge of the contract; Since there is no knowledge of contract, there is no contract; Since there is no contract, there is no right to the reward.
Here is my analysis, outside the purview of law, this may sound impractical. However, one should note the main purpose of law is to uphold ethics, and the greater good of the society. Did this judgement uphold the greater good of society? Did it uphold the ethics? Here are some perspectives –
1. Greed of Gauri Dutt: Outside the purview of law, Pt Gauri dutt is a fine example of human greed. Human beings are weird and just uses loopholes and interpretations in law to dishonor commitments. The period in which the law was passed might be a long ago, when Gauri Dutt considered employees are for granted. But for a rationale human mind, Gauri dutt is no more than a greedy employer or a greedy human being; he just used deception for personal gains
2. Greed of Lalman Shukla: Lalman Shukla just wanted to make the best of the situation. When he started his quest for the nephew (was that a quest?), he was merely working for his employer and for his salary. He just became greedy when he came to know that an incentive was present and he could have used it. During then, INR 501, was a lot of money, probably decades worth of handwork’s payoff. However, in some sense Lalman was just trying to make the most of the situation. He was just an opportunist.
3. In an ideal world (possible only in la la land), Gauri dutt should have begged Lalman Shukla to accept the incentive. And Lalman Shukla should have downright refused to accept the money, since he was honor bound. Ah… these are fairy tales, that is never possible in a real world. May be such a scenario could make a fragment in a, fairy tale. Well in la la lands, there is probably no requirement of law or the courts. We are still in earth; Almost all human beings are personifications of the 6 bad vices (lust, anger, greed, attachment, pride, jealousy). Every civil suit, is a contest arising due to one of these vices with itself. In this case it is the greed.
If it is a contest between greed and no greed, then the honorable courts have an easier option. But this is a case of saving the lesser of two evils. Or in some cases (very rare) the greater of two Goods, the courts have no option but to interpret a codification. There is no other way to sustain judgments in future scenarios, unless the courts interpret the codification. In this case, the court had its interpretation, and it does not seem erroneous. Whether its ethical or unethical has no place in reality; Ethical analysis without codes of conduct are unsustainable. The books, acts, and law can only do so much. Especially when judgments serve as basis for future cases and references. If we look from this perspective, it looks like the judgement is a best case of what one could expect from an interpretation of a codification – the law. From an ethical perspective, there does not seem to be a way with the current legal tools.
Business Management 