This is a leading case which illustrate the principle that silence cannot amount to acceptance.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff, Felthouse had discussed with his nephew to buy his horse. the plaintiff had offered to buy his horse for 30l. 15s through a letter dated 2 January 1862. He had stated in his letter that if he does not hear from his nephew, he will consider his nephew accepts his offer. Plaintiff’s nephew did not respond to his offer and had not performed any actions but he intends to sell it to his uncle. Plaintiff’s nephew had told his auctioneer, Bindley (the defendant) not to sell the horse. on 25 February 1862, the auctioneer had forgot about the instruction and sold the horse together with the rest of his farming stock. Thus, the plaintiff sued the defendant in conversion to recover the horse. Plaintiff was successful at trial and he receive 33l. Defendant later appealed.
Issue of the Case
Whether silence or a failure to reject an offer amount to acceptance?
Judgments of the Court
It was necessary for the plaintiff to show that there is a valid contract and the horse was his property to sue the defendant in the tort of conversion. The defendant argued that there was no valid contract for the horse because his nephew had not communicated his acceptance to the plaintiff.
The court held that a proposal had been made by the plaintiff but his nephew did not communicate his acceptance or done anything to bind himself although it was found that the nephew had intended to accept his uncle’s offer. Nothing therefore, had been done to vest the property in the horse in the plaintiff before the auction took place.
This was held by Willes, J as follows:
“It is clear, therefore, that the nephew in his own mind intended his uncle to have the horse at the price which he (the uncle) had named, 30l. 15s.: but he had not communicated such his intention to his uncle, or done anything to bind himself. Nothing, therefore, had been done to vest the property in the horse in the plaintiff down to the 25th of February, when the horse was sold by the defendant. It appears to me that, independently of the subsequent letters, there had been no bargain to pass the property in the horse to the plaintiff, and therefore that he had no right to complain of the sale.”
The court held that the plaintiff could not maintain an action against the defendant for the conversion of the horse as he has no property in the horse when the defendant sold it.
Principle of the Case
Silence cannot amount to acceptance of an offer.
Comments