Felthouse v Bindley
Silence cannot amount to acceptance of an offer.
Facts
Paul Felthouse wanted to buy a horse from his nephew, John. After some misunderstanding over the price, he wrote to the nephew offering £30 15s and adding: If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at that price. The nephew did not reply. However, he was about to sell his farming stock at auction and told the auctioneer, Bindley, to keep the horse out of the sale as it had been sold to his uncle. Bindley forgot and sold the horse to another buyer. The uncle sued Bindley in the tort of conversion, which required him to show that the horse was his property.
Legal principle
The court held that the uncle could not sue, because no contract had been made with the nephew and so the horse had never become his property. The nephew had never communicated acceptance to the uncle, and an offeror cannot turn the offeree's silence into acceptance by stating that silence will be treated as such. The nephew's statement to the auctioneer showed that he intended to sell, but it was not communicated to the uncle. The rule protects offerees from having to take steps to reject unwanted offers.
Related cases on offer and acceptance
- Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
- Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] 1 WLR 1195
- Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 AC 34
- Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 401
- Byrne & Co v Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) 5 CPD 344
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256
- Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463
- Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
