| Citation | (1862) 142 ER 1037 |
| Date of Judgment | 8 July 1862 |
| Case Number | 35 of 1862 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
| Appellant | Paul Felthouse |
| Respondent | William Bindley |
| Bench | Justice Willes, J.Byles, J.Keating |
| Provision of Applied | Acceptance, Section 4 of Indian Contract Act,1872 |
| Case Referred | 1.Stockdale vs. Dunlop2.M/s H & Co. case3.Coats vs. Chaplin case |
Fact of This Case:-
The appellant in this case was Paul Felthouse, who was a builder living in London. He wanted to buy a horse from his Nephew his name is John Felthouse. And Paul also convinced John to sell the horse, but it was not clear how much the horse was to be sold for so John wrote a letter to his uncle Paul on 1 January 1861 in that letter John told his uncle Paul that he wanted the horse for a 30 Guineas while his uncle Paul wanted him to buy the horse for 30 Pounds, after that on 2 January 1861, Paul replied to John that the price you have given for the horse is 30 Guineas. So to solve this problem Paul increased the price of the horse to 30 Pounds 15 Cents, and Paul wrote in the letter that, “if I hear no more about him I will assume that in 30 Pounds 15 Cents”. This horse of yours will become mine. But John did not reply to this letter because he was busy with his farm’s auction work. William Bindley, his auctioneer, also did not reply to the letter. John told Bindley that they keep this horse safe and neither sell it, and what John said was to sell my farming stock, but did not ask to sell the horse. But Bindley accidentally sold the horse on 25 February 1861 and at a price higher than the price at which John was ready to give the horse to Paul. Bindley mistakenly sold the horse to a third person when John came to know about this, John wrote a letter to his uncle Paul on 27 February 1861. Said that my auctioneer Bindley mistakenly sold the horse to a third person I am very sorry for this mistake and I will try to get it back from the person my auctioneer Bindley mistakenly sold the horse to well as Bindle also apologized to Paul for this mistake and said that John had not asked me to sell this horse but I had sold that horse by mistake, so forgive me when Paul came to know that the horse which was brought from Paul the horse was mistakenly sold by Bindley, so finally Paul sued Bindley in the Tort of Conversion which is using someone else’s property inconsistently with their rights.
Legal Issues Raised in this Case:-
Some important issues came before the court in this case:-
- Whether silence or a failure to reject an offer amounts to acceptance?
- Whether a valid contract existed between Paul and his nephew John?
- Did John have possession of the horse sold by the Bindley in auction?
- Whether conversion took place?
Appellant’s Arguments:-
Paul said that this was a valid contract because no one came from his nephew’s side and therefore that horse would be considered mine. Paul further said that when Bindley’s horse was auctioned, at that time I was the owner of that horse and not Bindley. Paul further said, Bindley auctioned my property unfairly so Bindley should be held responsible for the conversion.
Respondent’s Arguments:-
Bindley said it was not a valid contract because John had never informed Paul of his acceptance. Therefore cannot be said to be a valid contract. furthermore, Bindley said that there is no valid contract between Paul and John and thus Paul has no right on the horse. Nor can it ever be officially determined that it was horse Paul’s, so therefore he cannot be sued for conversion.
Judgment:-
The decision in this case has been given with the consent of all three judges Justice Willes, J.Byles, and J.Keating. There was no unequivocal agreement between both John and Paul. There was some misunderstanding between the two parties regarding the price of the horse. So to clear the misunderstanding, Paul told John that I am ready to pay 30 Pounds 15 Cents for this horse and his nephew did not respond to the letter so the deal could not be considered complete, even though John intended to sell the horse to Paul, but John did not reply to that letter.
This proposal was valid from 25 February 1861 until the horse was sold by Bindley, Paul had nothing to prove that the horse was his. John’s silent acceptance of sending the horse will not be accepted in the court. John did not reply to that letter to Paul hence the horse and any official related to it were not given to Paul at the time of sale the horse was not the property of Paul and couldnot take any action of conversion against Bindley.
Analysis of the Judgment:-
Justice Willes gave the leading judgment that acceptance is essential to a valid contract. John did not respond to Paul’s letter in which he offered the price of the horse at 30 Pounds and 15 Cents. Therefore, the price of the horse offered by Paul at 30 Pounds 15 Cents will not be considered valid till then, unless John informs Paul of that offer.
Citing the decision of the Dobell vs. Hutchinson case, the court said, it was not necessary to accept the offer in writing. However, no approval was received for the proposal the horse was sold on 25 February 1861, and at that time there was nothing to prove that the horse belonged to Paul because Paul had received no such approval from John. So Paul did not have anything to blame on Bindley because the sale of the horse was not completed.
Justice Byles agreed with the decision and Justice Keating further emphasized that even though an offer was made, there was no acceptance of that offer which would be binding the nephew under the contract. Therefore the court said, there is nothing to show that Paul had any right over the horse at the time it was sold. He did not have a vested right in the property so his action for conversion against William Bindley could not be maintained.
Conclusion:-
In the history of Contract Law, one of the cases his name is Felthouse vs. Bindley was a turning point. In this case was proved that there was not any contract between the uncle (Paul) and nephew (John) thus proving that the silence will not amount to an acceptance of a contract.
References:-
- https://thelegallock.com/
- https://indianlegalsolution.com/
- https://lawyersgyan.com/
- https://teamattorneylex.in/
About the Author:-
This article is written by Dhiraj Kumar Saw, student of University Law College Hazaribagh, (VBU) Jharkhand. Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
