Law of Contract
Felthouse v Bindley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Felthouse v Bindley
Court Court of Common Pleas
Citation(s) (1862) 11 Cb (NS) 869; [1862] EWHC CP J35; 142 ER 1037
Transcript(s) Full text of judgment
Judge(s) sitting Willes J, Byles J and Keating J
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35, is the leading English contract law case on the rule that one cannot impose an obligation on another to reject one 's offer. This is sometimes misleadingly expressed as a rule that "silence cannot amount to acceptance".
Later the case has been rethought, because it appeared that on the facts, acceptance was communicated by conduct (see, Brogden v Metropolitan Railway). Furthermore in Rust v Abbey Life Assurance Co Ltd[1] the Court of Appeal held that a failure by a proposed insured to reject a proffered insurance policy for seven months justified on its own an inference of acceptance.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Facts
2 Judgment
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
[edit]Facts
Uncle Paul Felthouse was a builder who lived in London. He wanted to buy the horse Sizing Europe off his nephew, John Felthouse. After a letter from the nephew about a previous discussion in buying the horse, the uncle replied saying,
"If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at £30 and 15s."
The nephew did not reply. He was busy at auctions on his farm in Tamworth. He told the man running the auctions, William Bindley, not to sell the horse. But by accident, Bindley did. Uncle Felthouse then sued Bindley in the tort of conversion - using someone else 's property inconsistently with their rights. But for the Uncle to show the horse was his property, he had to show there was a valid contract. Bindley argued there was not, since the nephew had never communicated his acceptance of the uncle 's offer.
[edit]Judgment
The court ruled that Felthouse did not have ownership of the horse as there was no acceptance of the contract. Acceptance must be communicated clearly and
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Felthouse v Bindley
Court Court of Common Pleas
Citation(s) (1862) 11 Cb (NS) 869; [1862] EWHC CP J35; 142 ER 1037
Transcript(s) Full text of judgment
Judge(s) sitting Willes J, Byles J and Keating J
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35, is the leading English contract law case on the rule that one cannot impose an obligation on another to reject one 's offer. This is sometimes misleadingly expressed as a rule that "silence cannot amount to acceptance".
Later the case has been rethought, because it appeared that on the facts, acceptance was communicated by conduct (see, Brogden v Metropolitan Railway). Furthermore in Rust v Abbey Life Assurance Co Ltd[1] the Court of Appeal held that a failure by a proposed insured to reject a proffered insurance policy for seven months justified on its own an inference of acceptance.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Facts
2 Judgment
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
[edit]Facts
Uncle Paul Felthouse was a builder who lived in London. He wanted to buy the horse Sizing Europe off his nephew, John Felthouse. After a letter from the nephew about a previous discussion in buying the horse, the uncle replied saying,
"If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at £30 and 15s."
The nephew did not reply. He was busy at auctions on his farm in Tamworth. He told the man running the auctions, William Bindley, not to sell the horse. But by accident, Bindley did. Uncle Felthouse then sued Bindley in the tort of conversion - using someone else 's property inconsistently with their rights. But for the Uncle to show the horse was his property, he had to show there was a valid contract. Bindley argued there was not, since the nephew had never communicated his acceptance of the uncle 's offer.
[edit]Judgment
The court ruled that Felthouse did not have ownership of the horse as there was no acceptance of the contract. Acceptance must be communicated clearly and
References: Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 C.B.N.S 869; 142 ER 1037, Court of Common Pleas [This version of the judgment has been edited by Dr Robert N Moles