Felthouse vs. Bindley Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Felthouse vs. Bindley Case Brief PDF

Description

Felthouse vs. Bindley Case Brief Summary of Facts Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35, is an English contract law case on the rule that silence cannot amount to acceptance. A qualified acceptance must be absolute and must be properly communicated in a reasonable or prescribed manner in due time. Paul Felthouse was a builder who lived in London. He wanted to buy a horse from his nephew, John Felthouse. Mr Paul made an offer to his nephew quoting the price at which he was willing to purchase the horse. But the price he offered to pay for the horse was less than that his nephew was willing to sell it for. The uncle made the offer of purchase to the nephew in January, The nephew did not reply and no actions were performed. Therefore, the horse remained in the possession of the nephew. The letter Mr Felthouse sent to his nephew read, "If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at £30.15s." In February, the nephew sold in an auction, all of his farm stock in Tamworth. He told he auctioneer, William Bindley, not to sell the horse. But by accident, Bindley did.

Issue Paul Felthouse sued Bindley, the auctioneer for wrongful conversion of someone else's property without proper authorisation. But a valid contract was necessary for Felthouse to prove that the horse was his property. Bindley argued there was no such contract, since the nephew had never communicated his acceptance of the uncle's offer. The issue in this case was whether silence or a failure to reject an offer amount to acceptance.

Decision The bench of sitting judges Willes J, Byles J and Keating J ruled that Felthouse did not have ownership of the horse as there was no acceptance of the contract. Acceptance must be communicated clearly and cannot be imposed due to silence of one of the parties. Any acceptance of an offer must be communicated clearly. Although the nephew had intended to sell the horse to Mr Felthouse and showed this interest, there was no contract of sale. Thus, the nephew’s failure to respond to the offer made by his uncle did not amount to an acceptance of his offer.

Reasoning Judge Willes, writing for a unanimous court, says that “it is clear here that nothing had been done at the time of the auction to imply that the property had changed hands to the uncle, and the nephew had given no acceptance”. Therefore, with no acceptance or implied acceptance through actions, the property remained in the hands of the nephew at the time of the auction, and the uncle has no case against the auctioneer for selling goods that were not owned by him. If the nephew wanted to enter into the contract he must have given clear indication of his acceptance, which he had failed to do....