| Citation | Powell v. Lee (1908) 99 LT 284 |
| Date of Judgment | 1908 |
| Court | King’s Bench Division |
| Case Type | Contract law case |
| Appellant | Mr. Powell |
| Respondent | Mr. Lee |
FACTS OF THE CASE
Mr. Powell [“plaintiff”] applied an application to the school for the position of headmaster. The School Board accepted his application and thereby decided to appoint him.
However, before such a decision of appointment was conveyed to him by the authorised authority, one of the board members acting in his capacity informed the plaintiff of the board’s decision. Later, for some reason, the council changed their mind and decided to withdraw their decision by appointing someone else.
Aggrieved by this, the plaintiff, on the grounds of breach of contract, filed a suit against the school.
ISSUES:
Whether the school was liable for breach of contract.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff’s Arguments:
The plaintiff asserted that an acceptance of an offer must be properly communicated in order to be considered legitimate. Furthermore, the offeree, in his authorised capacity, or a representative of his choosing, should carry out this contact. In this case, the plaintiff argued that the school board member who allegedly accepted the offer lacked the necessary authority. The plaintiff said that since there was no legal acceptance of the offer, there was no formation of a contract between the plaintiff and the school board.
Defendant’s Arguments:
The key point is that Mr. Powell never formally conveyed the acceptance. Since Mr. Powell was never formally informed of acceptance, he shouldn’t be pursuing a breach of contract lawsuit. The board members notified Mr. Powell that his application had been declined. The only and final conclusion communicated to him was this refusal, and it came from a duly appointed representative. The opening for the headmaster’s position was an invitation to offer in the terms of the Indian Contract Act. Mr. Powell effectively offered to become the headmaster when he applied. The board of members had the authority to accept or reject the offer, and they chose to do so. This was within their legal rights. Therefore, the situation has no legal issues, and the court’s judgment is in the best interest of all parties involved.
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff didn’t receive any official confirmation from the management. His rejection letter was the only official communication he received, and he lacks any means of contesting the authorities’ decision not to name him as the school’s headmaster. The court further emphasised that while the authority member informed the plaintiff informally in this case, there should have been an authorised person on the part of the authority to convey the information to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff was never formally informed of the acceptance, Powell and the school did not enter into a legally enforceable agreement. In conclusion, the crucial question in this instance was whether an authorised authority correctly communicated its acceptance of an offer. The breach of contract action was dismissed when the court determined it was not.
REFERENCES
Powell vs. Lee (lawtimesjournal.in)
Powell v. Lee (1908) 99 LT 284
This Article is written by Anushka Raghunandan of Symbiosis Law School Hyderabad, an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
