Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869

Facts

  • The case concerned a dispute over the attempted sale of a horse between Mr. Paul Felthouse (uncle) and his nephew, Mr. John Felthouse.
  • Mr. Felthouse wrote to his nephew: "If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at £30 15s," seeking to bind the nephew's silence as acceptance.
  • The nephew did not reply to the uncle's letter.
  • The nephew intended to sell the horse to his uncle and instructed an auctioneer, Mr. Bindley, to exclude it from an auction.
  • The auctioneer accidentally sold the horse at auction to a third party.
  • The uncle sued the auctioneer for conversion, claiming he had legal title to the horse, asserting there had been a contract of sale.
  • The central issue was whether the nephew’s silence in response to the uncle’s letter created a binding contract.

Issues

  1. Whether an offeree's silence can constitute valid acceptance of a contractual offer.
  2. Whether a contract of sale existed between the uncle and nephew such that the uncle held legal title to the horse.
  3. Whether the unilateral imposition that silence would amount to acceptance is effective in contract formation.

Decision

  • The Court of Common Pleas ruled against the plaintiff (uncle), finding that no contract had been formed.
  • The court held that acceptance of an offer must be explicitly communicated to the offeror; silence does not amount to acceptance.
  • The uncle's attempt to stipulate that silence would be treated as acceptance was deemed legally invalid.
  • The nephew’s internal intention to sell the horse was not communicated to the uncle and did not satisfy the requirements of acceptance.
  • No legal title passed to the uncle, so he could not succeed in the action for conversion.

Legal Principles

  • Silence cannot constitute acceptance; a valid contract requires clear expression or communication of assent by the offeree.
  • An offeror cannot unilaterally impose contractual liability on an offeree by stipulating that silence will amount to acceptance.
  • Contract formation is grounded in mutual assent, which must be demonstrably communicated between parties.
  • Although mere silence is insufficient, unequivocal conduct may amount to acceptance in other circumstances, but no such conduct was present here.
  • The judgment reinforced the necessity of clear and certain communication in contract formation to prevent unfairness and ambiguity.

Conclusion

Felthouse v Bindley definitively established in English contract law that silence cannot be deemed acceptance of an offer, requiring express communication or unmistakable conduct evidencing agreement for a binding contract to arise.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal