FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2016)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,264 times | Saved to 111 briefcases
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35.


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.


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


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


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.


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.