FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2016)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 595 times | Saved to 16 briefcases
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35.

Facts:

P and his nephew negotiated unsuccessfully over the horse until P proposed a price and said his nephew's silence would mean he accepted. D was an auctioneer who was about to sell the nephew's livestock, including the horse when the nephew said that it was already sold. The auctioneer sold it.

Issue(s):

Can an offer be accepted with silence where both parties believe there is a contract while there's a third party involved?

Ratio:

No, while there's a third party involved, the agreement of both parties is insufficient, an unequivocal action is required.

Analysis:

Stockdale v. Dunlop an acceptance relating back to an offer does not have the power to bind persons' dealings with that property which took place in the interim.
-P did not have the power to bind the nephew with his requirement of silence.
-Nothing had been done to communicate to his uncle or bind him to his acceptance.

Holding:

Appeal dismissed in favour of D.


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.