RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW,

PUNJAB

TOPIC: ESSENTIALS OF PROPOSAL AND ITS

RELEVANT PROVISIONS.

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Riddhi agarwal DR. Vikram Karuna

22240 Assistant Professor of Law
RGNUL
 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

I hereby declare that the project report entitled “Proposal and its Relevant Provisions”,
submitted to the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, Patiala is an outcome of
my original work carried out under the supervision of DR. Vikram Karuna. The project is
based entirely on my research work and has not been submitted elsewhere. All the ideas and
references have been duly acknowledged. To the best of my understanding, the project is free
from plagiarism.

Riddhi agarwal
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab,
Patiala
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My sincere efforts have made me accomplish the task of completing this project. I have
taken an effort in this project. However, it would not have been possible without many
individuals’ kind support and help.

I would like to thank the vice-chancellor of the University DR. GS Bajpai for guiding the
faculty and the students as well, he has encouraged us with wide options and opportunities in
research.

I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my research supervisor DR. Vikram
Karuna for giving me this opportunity and also for guiding me throughout the process. While
I was working on this project, DR. Vikram Karuna acted as a guiding light and also closely
observed the developments of this project.

I would also like to acknowledge my family and other well-wishers, without them this project
would not have even commenced. They pushed me and encouraged me to explore various
areas of this project and also gave me mental and moral support for the same.

Riddhi Agarwal
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Contents
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................5

ESSENTIALS OF AN OFFER/PROPOSAL............................................................................7

CASES RELATED TO ESSENTIALS OF PROPOSAL/OFFER............................................8

Conclusion:..............................................................................................................................18

CASES

Balfour v Balfour(1919).............................................................................................................8
white v Bluett (1853)................................................................................................................10
Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt(1913).........................................................................................11
felhouse v. bindley(1862).........................................................................................................13
Boulten v. Jones(1857).............................................................................................................14
carlil v. carbolic smoke ball co.(1893)……………………………………………………...14
INTRODUCTION
Any action or inaction by the party proposing, accepting it, or revoking it that he intends to
use to communicate the proposal, acceptance of it, or revocation of it, or that has the effect of

communicating it, is presumed to have been made by that party.

There cannot be any contract or agreement between parties without communication of the
proposal. Thus, where there is a reward for an act and the doing of the act of done in
ignorance of the reward, then the person is not entitled to that reward.1 When two people in
ignorance of the fact offer to sell and buy the same thing and in consonance with that, write
letters to each other, then the two letters cross each other, there is no contract. 2if a proposal is
made in a term that can’t be accepted or rejected, there arises no contract.3 No offer is
complete until a proposal is received. 4if a proposal is given a mental assent and not a
concrete assent, no contract would arise. 5also in the case of acceptance, mental assent itself is
not enough, it should be communicated to the other person, his having it in his mind is
nothing, “for it is trite law that the thought of man is not triable, for even the devil does not
know what the thought of man is”. 6

It is not necessary that communication should be made in words, but may be expressed
symbolically, as by the fall of a hammer upon a sale by auction. 7or by nodding.8 If there is a
proposal that requires the acceptor to accept the proposal by doing some particular thing, then
as soon as he does it, the proposal is accepted. This is also illustrated in the case of
advertisements offering rewards on the condition of doing a particular act. “the person makes
the offer shows by his language and from the nature of the transaction that he does not
expect, and that he does not require, a notice of the acceptance apart from notice of
performance”, 9if a proposal creates an obligation on the acceptor to accept or not, then it
would no result into a contract.10

1
Lalman Shukla v. gauri Datta
2
Tinn v. hoffman (1956) 29 LT 271.
3
Taylor v laird 25 LJ Ex 329.
4
E.B.I. & R.P.CO. v Velayammal AIR 1937 mad 571.
5
Brogden v Metropolitian Ry. Co. 2 AC 666(682-688).
6
Brodgen v Metropolitian Ry. Co. 2 AC 692.
7
Payne v Cave 3 TR 148; [1975-1802] ALL ER Rep 492.
8
Brogden v. Metroplotian Ry. Co. 2 AC 666 (691); see s. 8. See Cheshire, fifoot & furmston’s Law of Contract,
13th Ed., p.38; Anson’s Law of contract, 27Th Ed., pp. 41-42.
9
Carlil v carbolic smoke ball co. (1893)
10
Felthouse v bindley()
We can understand the proposal through-

sec 2(a) of the Indian contract act, which says, “when one person signifies to another his
willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, to obtain the assent of that other to such act
or abstinence, he is said to propose.”;

Sec 2(b) of the Indian contract act, says, “when the person to whom the proposal is made
signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted,
becomes, becomes a promise.”;

Sec 2(c) of the Indian contract act, says, “the person proposing is called the ‘promisor’, and
the person accepting the proposal is called the ‘promisee’.”

Sec 3 of the Indian contract act, says, “the communication, of proposals the acceptance of
proposals, and the revocation of proposals and acceptances, respectively, are deemed to be
made any act or omission of the party proposing, accepting or revoking by which he intends
to communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of
communicating it.”;

Sec 4 of the Indian contract act, says, “the communication of a proposal is complete when it
comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.”

Sec 5 of the Indian contract act, says, “a proposal may be revoked at any time before the
communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterward.”;

Sec 8 of the Indian contract act, says, “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.”

Sec9 of the Indian contract act, says, “in so far as the proposal or acceptance of any promise
is made in words, the promise is said to be expressed. In so far as such proposal or acceptance
is made other than in words, the promise is said to be implied.”
ESSENTIALS OF AN OFFER/PROPOSAL
(1) Offer must create legal relations: The offer must result in a contract with legal
connections and repercussions for non-performance. A social contract that does not
establish legal connections is thus invalid. Say, for instance, that A did not have the
right to extend a dinner invitation to B.

(2) Offer must be clear, not vague: The offer's or proposal's conditions must be
unambiguous and precise. It won't be considered an acceptable offer if the conditions
are ambiguous or imprecise. Consider the following offer as an example: A proposes
to exchange Rs 5000 worth of fruit for B. This offer is invalid since neither the exact
types of fruits nor their amounts are specified.
(3) Offer must be communicated to the offeree: A proposition must be made
clear to the offeree to be successful. No offeree who is not aware of the offer may
accept the proposal. A well-known example of this is Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt. It
is made clear that consenting to a plan while being unaware of it does not constitute
consent.
(4) Offer may be conditional: An offer may be subject to conditions, but
acceptance cannot be. Any terms or restrictions the offeror thinks essential may be
added to the offer. Therefore, A can propose to sell B some things in exchange for a
50% down payment. B can now choose to accept these terms or submit a
counterproposal.

(5) Offer cannot contain a negative condition: Offers can have restrictions
attached to them, but acceptance cannot. The offeror has the right to include any
conditions or limitations they see necessary. As a result, A can suggest that B buy
some items from him in exchange for a 50% down payment. B may now accept these
conditions or provide a counterproposal.
(6) Offer can be specific or general: The offer may be made to one or more
particular parties. Or the offer could be made to the whole public.
(7) Offer may be implied: The offeror may present an offer verbally or even via his
actions. An explicit contract is created by words, whether they are written or spoken
(oral contract). Additionally, an implied contract exists when an offer is made by the
conduct and activities of the offeror.
 CASES RELATED TO ESSENTIALS OF
PROPOSAL/OFFER
(1) Offer must create legal intention- this essential is being defined in the case
of Balfour v Balfour(1919).11
Facts:
The plaintiff (Mrs. Balfour) and defendant (Mr. Balfour) in the case Balfour
v. Balfour were a married couple living in Ceylon, where the husband was
employed by the government. While Mr. Balfour was on leave from work in
1915, the couple traveled to England, but when Mr. Balfour's employment
resumed in 1916, he was forced to return to Ceylon.
However, Mrs. Balfour (the complainant), who has rheumatoid arthritis, was
told to remain at home. The couple had a verbal arrangement before the
defendant traveled back to Ceylon, according to which Mr. Balfour stated he
would pay Mrs. Balfour £30 per month for support until she returned. As
time went on, the couple's disputes grew, and Mr. Balfour advised that they
should maintain their distance. He gradually ceased sending money. To hold
the husband (defendant) accountable for breaking their verbal agreement, the
wife (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit.
Issue:
Whether the verbal agreement between the plaintiff (Mrs. Balfour) and the defendant (Mr.
Balfour) amount to a contract?
Rule:
(i). A contract, as defined by English contract law, is an arrangement that results in
obligations that are upheld or recognized by the law. There are three fundamental
requirements for the formation of a contract under common law: (a) agreement (b)
contractual intention (c) consideration.
(ii). According to the idea of establishing legal intents, both parties must intend to engage
in a legally binding contract and be prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions
should any of them fail to fulfill their obligations under the contract.
(iii). According to common law, "something of value" must be exchanged for a promise
for the promise to be enforceable as a contract. This "something of value" is known as

11
Balfour-Kinnear v. Balfour-Kinnear, [1919] SLR 282. (n.d.). Https://Www.Casemine.Com. Retrieved October 9, 2022, from

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff82160d03e7f57ebb3dc
consideration. Traditionally, there is either some harm to the promisee or some gain for
the promisor.

The argument made for the appellant:

Until the husband returned to England, the agreement was just a domestic arrangement
between the couple. Their split was not the subject of any agreement. As a result, it was
not legally binding. The wife's side also showed no care. Therefore, the appellant was
under no contractual duty.
Arguments made for the respondent:
The respondents countered that since a contract might form between a husband and wife
just as it would with any other person, the wife was entitled to keep receiving the
payments by the verbal arrangement they had made before Mr. Balfour departed for
Ceylon.

Judgment:
Warrington LJ expressed his viewpoint by pointing out that this was a cordial
arrangement. He claimed that it may be inferred from a phrase or an implied meaning.
Since the wife did not haggle for the amount of money that was given to her, no such
express contract was created. It is so thought that she was happy with the £30. The
spouse, however, gave the impression that he would wait to pay the money until he was
able to. As a result, he concluded that this domestic arrangement is exceedingly
insignificant and cannot be brought before a court. Furthermore, the husband was only
ready to pay the amount until he was able to do so, indicating that he had no desire to
engage in a legally binding contract.
Duke LJ added a few significant details. Their connection, which cannot be contained in a
suit, served as the foundation for their communication. Second, this arrangement was
made while they were cohabiting, not after they had separated. Finally, neither was there
a commitment made by the husband in the first place nor was there any thought of the
wife going to the husband. As a result, no contract was ever established.
Last but not least, Atkin LJ ruled that such agreements between the parties do not produce
contracts in the legal sense of the word. The agreements between a husband and wife
seem to be the most typical kind of agreement that does not constitute a contract. Since
their primary focus is love and affection, neither of them should be subject to legal
repercussions if they fail to fulfill their obligations.

Present status of the judgment:

One of the most important instances in English law, Balfour v. Balfour, established the
principle that agreements between husband and wife are not regarded as contracts since it
is assumed that there is no intention to establish a legal relationship between the two
parties.
Since it established the "doctrine to form legal intents," it is a landmark case.
 This notion served as a precedent in several subsequent instances, such as Spellman v.
Spellman.

Conclusion:
According to the judge, there was no contract. Given that the husband and wife did not
seek to establish a relationship that would give rise to legal obligations, it was only a
domestic arrangement.
(2) Offer must be clear, not vague- this essential is being defined in the case of white v Bluett
(1853). 12

Facts:
In this case, the respondent is Bluett Sr., who made a loan to his son but passed away
before getting his money back. This was agreed to and a promissory note was signed to
that effect by Bluett Sr. and Jr. White carried out Bluett's wishes. White sued Bluett's son
for the unpaid debt while carrying out the will. The son claimed that Bluett Sr. had made
it clear that the promissory note would become useless if the son ceased griping about
how Bluett Sr. distributed his inheritance among the other family members if the son
stopped making complaints.

Issue:
The question of whether the son's vow to quit criticizing his father's intentions would
fulfill the criterion of consideration in creating a contract was one that the court had to
decide. If this could be demonstrated, Bluett's son may be exempt from having to pay
back the amount owing to the estate of his father.
Decision/outcome/judgement:
According to the court, the son did not provide any factor that would release him from
having to pay back the amount owed to his father's estate. The son had no right to protest,
according to the court, because the father was free to divide his possessions any way he
saw fit. As a result, refraining from complaining was ultimately an intangible vow and
was not seen as a consideration. The conclusion was succinctly stated by Pollock, CB,
who stated that "the argument is pressed to an absurdity, as a bubble is expanded till it
explodes."

(3) Offer must be communicated to the offeree and the offer can be
conditional - this element is being explained by Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt(1913).13
Facts:

12
All Answers ltd, 'White v Bluett - 1853' (Lawteacher.net, October 2022)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/white-v-bluett.php?vref=1> accessed 5 October 2022
13
Gulati S, “Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt:- Case Analysis” (Our Legal World, April 25, 2020) <https://www.ourlegalworld.com/lalman-
shukla-v-gauri-dutt-case-analysis-our-legal-world/> accessed October 9, 2022
Gauri Dutt, the defendant's nephew, ran away from his wife. Gauri Dutt instructed his
slaves to look for his nephew as a result. All the staff was dispatched, and travel and other
costs were covered. Lalman Shukla, the plaintiff, and a servant was also dispatched to
Haridwar.
The defendant then announced a prize of Rs. 501 to anyone who can discover his nephew
because he had been missing for a while.
The youngster was later discovered by the plaintiff in Rishikesh and returned to
Cawnpore. The servant received two sovereigns from the defendant in Haridwar and Rs.
20 when he returned home.
The servant kept working without expecting any further compensation.
The servant was then fired from his job after six months. The plaintiff then asserted that
the award, or Rs. 499, was his due for the defendant's public promotion of his nephew.
Issue:

The plaintiff’s plea in the lower court was rejected. He then filed a suit in the
Allahabad high court. The issues in the cases were as follows-
(a) Was there a contract in the current situation
(b) Was the servant entitled to Rs. 499?
(c) Was the decision given by the lower court appropriate?
Related cases:
The plaintiff relied on the following cases:
(a) Williams v  Carwadine - It was determined that a legal contract exists
when the offer is accepted after the proposer has fulfilled the
unavoidable requirements he included in his proposal.
(b) Gibbons v. proctor- It was decided that when an offer is accepted after
the proposer has satisfied the inescapable criteria he mentioned in his
proposal, a legal contract is in place.

The defendant relied on fitch v. Snedeker; Ashley, the law of contract; and pollock,
principles of contract. He argued that only if the contract was made could the claim be
raised. As a result of the plaintiff's lack of acceptance of the offered terms, no contract
was formed.

Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court accepted the lower court's ruling in its entirety. As a result,
it was determined that acceptance is crucial to a contract. As a result, the contract was
 not fulfilled, and the plaintiff is thus not entitled to the compensation specified in the
advertising.

A contract is therefore deemed invalid if it is not accepted. As a result, there was no

binding agreement between the parties, and the defendant had no obligation to
compensate the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi:

It is clear from this that knowledge and acceptance are necessary for the creation of a
legal contract. This implies that a person can only receive a reward in return if they
accept the offered proposition. Additionally, contact is required to receive the prize
that was missing in the current situation. In particular, it states that acceptance must
be done promptly and informed to the offeror. Thus, it means that a genuine contract
must be entered into to carry out legal responsibilities.

Conclusion:

This is a perfect example of a generic offer. Establishing the fundamentals of the

general offer has therefore been crucial. In a broad offer, the contract is established
with the individual who steps forward and complies with the offer's terms after being
made aware of it. The best example of a broad offer, as demonstrated in this case as
well, is one presented as a reward through advertising for locating missing items.

Only the individual who completes the assignment can take the award if it is provided
as a reward. In contrast, the offeror in this instance did not get acceptance or contact
and was therefore unable to receive the incentive in return.

(4) Offer cannot contain a negative condition: this element is explained in

felhouse v. bindley(1862)14.
Fact:
The complainant, Paul Felthouse, discussed purchasing his horse with his nephew, John
Felthouse. After they had a debate, the uncle wrote back to say that if he didn't hear from
his nephew about the horse again, he would consider acceptance of the order completed
and he would own the horse. While attending auctions, his nephew neglected to respond
to this letter. Mr. Bindley, the defendant, oversaw the auctions, and his nephew counseled
14
All Answers ltd, 'Felthouse v Bindley - (1862)' (Lawteacher.net, October 2022)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/felthouse-v-bindley.php?vref=1> accessed 8 October 2022
 him against selling the horse. But by mistake, he transferred ownership of the horse to
another person.
Issue:
To establish that there was a legal contract, the complainant, Paul Felthouse, had a cover
paul Felthouse sued Mr. Bindley in the tort of conversion, where it was essential to
establish that the horse was his property. Since the nephew did not explicitly accept the
complainant's offer, Mr. Bindley contended that there was no legal contract for the horse.
The question, in this case, was whether silence or failing to decline an offer constituted
acceptance.
Decision/outcome/judgement:
It was decided that the plaintiff and his nephew had no agreement over the horse. The
offer had not been accepted, silence did not constitute acceptance, and another person
cannot impose an obligation. Any acceptance of an offer must be made known in a
concise manner. There was no contract of sale, notwithstanding the nephew's intentions to
sell the horse to the complaint and his expressed desire. Therefore, the nephew's silence
on the complainant's offer did not constitute an acceptance of it.
(5) Offer can be specific or general- an example of a general offer can be cited
through carlil v. carbolic smoke ball co.(1893) 15and an example of a specific offer can be
cited through Boulten v. Jones(1857)16

(I) Carlil v. carbolic smoke ball co.

Facts:

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company developed a new marketing plan that called for them
to promote their product as a sure cure for ailments including the flu, hay fever, coughs
and colds, headaches, bronchitis, laryngitis, whooping cough, and other sore throat-
related issues.

15
Sehgal DR, “Case Analysis of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co” (iPleaders, July 25, 2020) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/case-analysis-
carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co/> accessed October 9, 2022

16
ACMC ESC, “Boulton v Jones: Fact Summary, Issues and Judgment of Court” (Bscholarly, June 30, 2021)
<https://bscholarly.com/boulton-v-jones/> accessed October 9, 2022
The court ruled that the parties had not made any arrangements about the horse. The
company was adamant that its product would be helpful. They further claimed that the
carbolic smoke ball has the ability to prevent users from contracting any form of the
common flu in addition to treating influenza. However, the company's main selling point
in its advertising was that, as long as the product (carbolic smoke ball) had been used for
a specific period of time, anyone who contracted a cold or the flu even after using it
would be eligible to claim £100 from the company. the nephew of the complainant.
In addition, the company asserted that it had gone as far as to deposit £1000 in a certain
Alliance Bank. The company put down this deposit in case any accusations were levelled
against its advertisement. The carbolic smoke ball was employed as directed by the
plaintiff Carlil. Even after the surgery, she still caught the flu. The Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company was so sued by her as a result. Since the company had advertised its products,
she wanted £100 from it. The court gave her a success judgement. The defendants,
nevertheless, appealed.
Issues:
(1) Whether the parties’ agreement has any legal force or effect?
(2) Was a formal notification of acceptance necessary for the contract in question?
(3) Whether Mrs. Carlil was compelled to inform the Carbolic Smoke Ball CO. that she
accepted the offer?
(4) Whether Mrs. Carlil provided anything in return for the 100 pounds that the
corporation offered as a reward.

Judgment:

The contract was deemed enforceable by the English Court of Appeals. Carlill had
money. The judges' reasoning are as follows:

Justice Lindley essentially said that ad copy should be taken as a clear promise. As long
as the smoke ball is utilised as instructed, this guarantee states that anyone who develops
the flu despite the smoke ball's stated capacity to prevent it will receive 100 pounds in
compensation (three times daily for 2 weeks). He proceeds by providing the following
justification:

The insertion of the specific phrase that "1,000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank,
confirming our seriousness in the subject," according to Justice Lindley, indicated that the
advertising was not merely a fluff piece or an empty brag. It is clear from this remark that
the business was serious when it initially offered the award.

Even if no one actually got this conditional benefit, the company's guarantee stands as
adequate evidence of its commitment. This offer was extended unilaterally to the entire
planet, thus accepting it is not required. Anyone doing so will be assumed to have
accepted the offer, which in this case calls for making three uses of the smoke ball over
the course of two weeks.

Justice Lindley came to the further conclusion that the advertising is not unclear. The
terms used in the advertising could be interpreted as giving a guarantee. It was done on
purpose to make any potential consumer feel as though they were entitled to 100 pounds
if they contracted the flu despite utilizing the smoke ball.

Lindley observed that the notice of acceptance is optional and need not come before the
performance. A constant offer, that was. For instance, if an express acceptance was
necessary, the person making the offer would get the notification of acceptance combined
with a guarantee to uphold the requirement stated in the advertising. In other words, it
means the transmission of acceptance of the offer if the stated requirements are met.

In the end, Justice Lindley came to the conclusion that this instance included reflection,
principally for two reasons. Initially, the firm profited from a rise in income. The second
drawback is the instant difficulties the consumer experiences while employing the smoke
ball in accordance with the instructions provided in the advertising. As a result, the
promise is paid for when the necessary requirements are met.

Justice Bowen contributed his defence. The judge and Bowen both agreed. His defence
consists of three elements.

The offer may potentially turn into a contract that is made available to the public if
someone abides by its conditions. The idea is established by their conduct, which also
implies that they are embracing it.

In these circumstances, a particular Notification of acceptance is not necessary.

There is anything sensible to consider. The first step in the corporation's financial success
will be the sale of the products. Second, the company's deposit of £1,000 in the bank as a
down payment on the offer implies that they are really committed to keeping their half of
the bargain should their product fail to prevent the flu.

Justice Smith rejected the appeal unanimously after adopting the justification advanced
by Justices Bowen and Lindley. A hundred-pound settlement was given to the plaintiff.

(II) Jones v. Boulten

Facts:

Jones, the defendant, sent a written order for items addressed specifically to Brocklehurst
to a store that is owned by him. Unbeknownst to the defendant, Brocklehurst had sold and
transferred his company to Boulton earlier that day. But without informing the defendant
that he had taken over the company, Boulton carried out the order and delivered the
products. In the belief that Brocklehurst had provided the commodities, the defendant
received them and consumed them. He claimed that since he had previously dealt with
Brocklehurst and had a set-off that he meant to depend on, he had intended to deal with
them directly when he received Boulton's invoice and refused to pay it.

Issue:

1) Is Jones liable to reimburse boulten?

2) Who is responsible for informing Jones about the acquisition of the company—
Brocklehurst or Boulton?

3) Is Boulton eligible to recover the cost of the products that Jones used?

Held:

The judge ruled that Jones, the defendant, was not responsible for the cost. The
identification of the person for whom a contract is made is crucial to the contract. There
was no Contract as a result. According to "POLLOCK," the law is clear that if you want
to enter into a contract with A, B cannot replace A without your permission and to your
detriment, obtaining himself the entirety of the contract's benefits.
 According to "MARTIN B," if the evidence shows that the defendant never intended to
enter into a contract with A by himself, B cannot compel him to do so; instead, he was
dealt with by A, and a contract with no one else can be used against him.

Because a contract was established in one person's name, another person cannot be sued
on it, unless there is an agency, according to "BRAMWELL B," who said that I do not set
it down.

According to "CHANNELL B," the plaintiff is not in a position to maintain this case
because he and the defendant did not enter into a contract. There was a contract signed
with B, who had business dealings with the defendant and owed him money, and it is this
contract that A is suing for; the issue is not one of principal and agent. Therefore, Section
64, which deals with rescinding a voidable contract, will also apply and Jones will not be
responsible for paying.

Comments:

Jones is unaware that the Boulton family has taken over the company since the original
contract was made between Brocklehurst and Jones. Jones presumptively placed an order
with Brocklehurst, the original contracting party, but not with Boulton.

The offer may only be accepted by the recipient. No other party may accept on either
side's behalf. I believe that the verdict rendered in this case is appropriate considering the
circumstances.

Only the recipient may accept anything that has been presented to them. For instance, if
someone signs a contract to publish a book, play performance, or paint a portrait, no one
else may use it.

(6) Offer may be implied- The legitimacy of implicit contracts is covered in the case of
Upton Rural District Council v. Powell17.

Facts:

17
Ruchi Gandhi, “Upton Rural District Council vs Powell: A Case Analysis” (Finlawportal, September 19, 2022)
<https://finlawportal.com/upton-rural-district-council-vs-powell-a-case-analysis/> accessed October 9, 2022.
 In Powell v. Upton Rural District Council, a fire broke out on Powell's land. To put out
the fire and stop any further damage, he immediately dispatched the fire brigade. The
Upton fire department put out the fire. Although Powell's land did not fall inside the
service zone, he thought it did. He was charged for the Upton fire brigade's services
despite not being in the District Council's service area.

Issue:

Now, in this instance, the issue of whether Powell was responsible for paying for the
services provided by the Upton fire brigade emerged.

Held:

The Court determined that Powell was responsible for paying for the Upton fire brigade's
services. In this instance, a promise to pay was inferred. Even if certain contracts are not
explicitly stated, they nonetheless obligate the parties to keep their word. Because they
are created by spoken or written words, these agreements are known as implied contracts.
An implied contract can be inferred from the actions of the parties or the specific facts of
a case. Although there was no explicit contract between Powell and Upton Rural District
Council in the instance case, Powell was nonetheless required to pay for the services
provided by Upton Rural District Council. The Court concluded that the defendant sought
Upton's services, and requested for them, and Upton responded by offering them. As a
result, the services were provided with an implied guarantee of payment. The defendant
was therefore required to reimburse the plaintiff for the services provided.

Conclusion:

An express contract is made via the use of words, either in writing or verbally, as opposed
to an inferred contract, which is made as a result of acts (Section 9 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872). Any agreement that has been freely entered into by the parties through an
offer and acceptance is regarded as legally binding in terms of the law. Whatever the
contract's format, this is accurate.

CONCLUSION:
From the above-mentioned cases, we can clearly understand the essentials of the offer and
also see the development of the essentials of the offer over a significant period. Through
Balfour v. Balfour, we can see that this case law is an authority for “ intention to contract”
which hold significant relevance to date. Through white v Bluett, we can understand that
the offer’s conditions must be clear and cannot be vague. The authority regarding
communication of offer and conditional offer is established by Lalman Shukla v. Gauri
Dutt which is still widely followed as a precedent. Also through felhouse v. bindley, we
got to know that an offer cannot create an obligation on the acceptor to deny or accept
that offer. General offers and specific offers can be cited through cases like carlil v.
carbolic smoke ball co.(1893) and Boulten v. Jones(1857) respectively. Carlil v. Carbolic
Smoke ball is also an authority for implied offers and is a celebrated precedent. Upton
Rural District Council v. Powell established a good example for implied contracts and is
very relevant in the present-day scenario. All these cases help in better understanding the
status of present-day proposals/offers.