| CITATION | ( 1862) EWHC CP J35 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 8 JULY 1862 |
| COURT | COURT OF COMMON PLEAS |
| CASE TYPE | (1863) 7 LT 835 |
| PLAINTIFF | FELTHOUSE |
| DEFENDANT | BINDLEY |
| BENCH | JUSTICE WILLES, JUSTICE BYLES AND JUSTICE KEATING |
| REFERRED | SECTION 4 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Paul Felthouse, a builder who used to live in London, wanted to buy a steed from his so- called nephew, John Felthouse.
2. John transferred a letter regarding the discussion about buying a steed. Responding to the letter uncle replied, “ If I hear no further about him, I consider the steed mine at£30.15s. ”
3. Due to engaging in some transaction work which has to be held on February 25th nephew forgot to reply to forenamed letter and ask the man who was running the transaction i.e. William Bindley not to vend the steed but by accident Bindley did.
4. Paul Felthouse sued Bindley for using another property without the concurrence of the proprietor and showed that there was a valid contract being between them but Bindley argued that there wasn’t a valid contract that has ever been as nephew has no way communicated his acceptance of the uncle’s offer.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether there was a valid contract between complainant and Defendant i.e. Paul Felthouse and William Bindley, independently
- Whether silence or rejection to offer is considered being acceptance
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff’s Arguments
• Complainant argued that a valid contract was since an offer was made and there was inferred acceptance on part of the nephew.
• Complainant further gratified that he’d been the proprietor of the steed when it was vended at transaction by Bindley. He claimed that Bindley inaptly dealt with his property. Therefore, he argued that Bindley be held liable for conversion.
Respondent’s Arguments
• The defendant dismissed the admissibility of the letter which the nephew wrote to his uncle after trade of the steed.
• He submitted that since there was no formal communication between the nephew and uncle regarding the acceptance of the offer, a valid contract did n’t live between them. Replier gratified that since there was no list contract at the time of the trade, he couldn’t be sued for conversion.
JUDGEMENT
The Court, in this case, ruled that no tort of conversion passed from the replier’s side as the complainant didn’t have possession of the steed at the time of thesale.It was held that acceptance of the offer should be communicated duly and bare silence can not amount to acceptance of the contract. The court stated that the letters written by Paul Felthouse, which had no response from his nephew’s side, can not amount to acceptance in itself. Since there was no clear communication between the parties, it would not constitute a valid contract.Furthermore, the letter in which the nephew told that he asked the defendant to reserve the trade and was dissatisfied by his mistake was considered. The court observed that it could be viewed as permissible substantiation against Bindley as the complainant didn’t have title over the horse.
Analysis
The main rule observed, in this case, was that the offeror can not bind the other party by contending that bare silence to accept an offer would amount toacceptance.It was made clear that the intention of the whoreson to vend the steed to uncle doesn’t signify acceptance in itself. Communication of acceptance, either by conduct or words, therefore form an essential element to constitute a validcontract.No communication in jotting was made to bind the contract. They were still in process of negotiating and complete and proper acceptance wasn’tconveyed.The steed was vended at a time when neither the whoreson nor the defendant was bound by thecontract.The complainant didn’t have the property of the steed and therefore, the letters submitted by the uncle to the whoreson complaining about the trade would not be submitted as substantiation. It didn’t justify his decision to sue the defendant for conversion.
Conclusion
Therefore, there was no valid deal between the nephew and his uncle. To make a contract between parties binding, offer and acceptance of the offer are essentials. In addition to that, it must be assured that the acceptance has been communicated well.The bare intention to accept the offer doesn’t bind the offeree in a contract. In this case, the complainant failed to do the same and the case was consequently dismissed.
REFERENCE
Written by Varuna an intern under legal vidhiya
