Felthouse v Bindley argument PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Felthouse v Bindley argument PDF

Description

Felthouse v. Bindley Date: July 8th, 1862 Court: Court of Common Pleas Judges: Willes, J; Byles, J; Keating, J Plaintif: Felthouse (Paul Felthouse, uncle of the seller, original buyer of the horse) Defendant: Bindley (an auctioneer) Facts: -There was a negotiation for the sale of a horse between an uncle (Plaintiff; Paul Felthouse) and his niece (John Felthouse). -J wrote to P, notifying him that the price should be 30 guineas instead of 30l and that a mistake was made and the uncle was aware of the mistake. P replied that he was aware of the price, but he offered 30l and never more, and J already said the horse belonged to him. However he was willing to split the difference and pay 30l. 15s. instead, if he heard no more from J, the horse would be considered sold. J never replied. -The horse was then accidentally sold at an auction by the auctioneer (Bindley; defendant) when J told him not to. -J wrote to P on Feb 27, 1861 (2 days after the auction), telling him that the J told Bindley the horse was sold when Bindley went to take an inventory of the stock. And Bindley tried to recover the horse after he realized his mistake. Plaintif’s argument: -claim damages for 33l (?) -there was an ample note of the contract in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds. 1. The main question: whether there was an acceptance of the offer by J  although no more communications were made after the letter wrote by P and before the auction, it was proved that the nephew afterwards told the defendant that the horse was sold, and desired the defendant to keep the horse out of the sale (proved by the letter sent on Feb 27, which was clearly an evidence, despite the fact that the letter was written after the conversion of the horse)  The Feb 27 letter was an admission of J that he had before that day assented to the bargain with P 2. Not necessary that the assent to the terms of the plaintiff should be in writing. Dobell v. Hutchinson Smith v. Neale

Defendant’s argument: 1. The letter of the 27th of Feb was clearly inadmissible. 2. The 17th section of the 29 Car.2, c.3 : “no contract for the sale of any goods shall be allowed to be good, except some note or memorandum in writing of the bargain be made and signed by the parties to be charged by such contract.”  No sufficient writing  At the time of the sale in the auction, there was no binding contract for the sale of the horse between the nephew (J) and the plaintiff (P) Judgments: Willes J. 1) there was no complete bargain in December 1860 since Felthouse didn’t know the exact price of the horse 2) there was still no complete bargain on 2nd January as Felthouse didn’t clearly state in a written document to repudiate the original offer 3) the nephew didn’t reply Felthouse which mean he didn’t communicate his intention to sell the horse to Felthouse, so he didn’t do anything to bind himself 4) the letter of the nephew on 27th February only showed an acceptance for the first offer which was revoked by the counter offer, so Felthouse cannot recover from this 5) according to Stockdale v Dunlop, even though there was the contract, it was incapable of being enforced as it was being verbal only → the horse was belonged to the nephew at the time it was sold Byles J. (same opinion as Willes J.) Keating J. 1) nothing had been done to pass the property of the horse from the nephew to Felthouse 2) although there was a proposal, no acceptance was made to bind the nephew → the horse was belonged to the nephew at the time it was sold....