In a quiet village, a loyal servant worked diligently for his master. One fateful day, panic spread through the household—the master’s young nephew had gone missing. Desperate to find the boy, the master publicly announced a reward for anyone who could bring him back safely. However, the servant, unaware of this declaration, set out on his own accord to search for the missing child.
After days of searching, the servant finally discovered the lost nephew and returned him home. Expecting gratitude for his noble act, he was taken aback when he learned about the promised reward. Believing he was entitled to it, he approached his master to claim what he thought was rightfully his. To his shock, the master refused, stating that since the servant had no prior knowledge of the offer, he was not eligible to claim the reward.
Feeling wronged, the servant took the matter to court, arguing that he deserved the reward simply because he had fulfilled the required condition—finding the lost nephew. The case sparked a crucial legal debate: Was there a valid contract between the two parties? Could a person unknowingly accept an offer and later claim its benefits?
The employer’s defense was clear—a contract requires mutual agreement, which includes awareness of the offer before performing the required act. Since the servant had no knowledge of the reward while searching for the boy, he could not have accepted the offer. Therefore, no legally binding contract existed.
After careful deliberation, the court ruled in favor of the employer. It established a fundamental principle of contract law: for a contract to be valid, the offeree must be aware of the offer before performing the stipulated action. Without prior knowledge, there can be no acceptance, and without acceptance, no contract exists.
