Case Summary - Bindley vs. Felthouse (1862) CCP
Bindley vs. Felthouse (1862) CCP: The offeree's silence is not an indication of acceptance. Facts The defendant, an auctioneer, planned to sell the plaintiff's nephew's farmed stock, including a particular horse, at an auction to be held in Tamworth. The plaintiff intended to buy the horse and spoke with his nephew orally about it. As a result of a misunderstanding regarding the 'As there may be a mistake about him, I will split the difference – £30 15s – I paying all the expenses from Tamworth,' the plaintiff uncle wrote to his nephew on January 2, 1862. You can send him whenever you want between now and March 25. If I don't hear anything else about him, I'll take the horse for £30 15s.' The nephew did not reply, and the defendant sold the horse at auction for £33 on February 25. The defendant wrote to the plaintiff on February 26th, apologising for his error, and the nephew wrote on February 27th, alluding to the horse 'I sold to you'. The plaintiff filed a conversion action, claiming that the horse belonged to him when the defendant sold it on February 25. Decision The plaintiff did not own the horse, according to the court, and had no genuine claim. '... it is... clear that the uncle had no right to compel the nephew to sell his horse for £30 15s unless he chose to comply with the condition of writing to reject the offer,' writes Willes J. When the horse in question was catalogued among the rest of the herd, the auctioneer (the defendant) was informed that it had already been sold. It is apparent that the nephew wanted for his uncle to have the horse at the price that he (the uncle) had indicated - £30 15s – in his own mind, but he had not expressed this intention to his uncle or done anything to bind himself.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Kembara's Legal InfosInfos about legal issues and legal concepts that are available online . Archives
February 2023
Categories
All
|