Barathkumar K M | Sastra Deemed to be University Thanjavur\u00a0| 27th June 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Felthouse Vs Bindley<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Facts:<\/u><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Paul Felthouse told his nephew, John Felthouse, regarding buying his horse. Paul Felthouse stated in a letter that if he didn\u2019t hear any more from his nephew, John Felthouse, he would consider that his nephew accepted the order and he would own the horse. His nephew had the intention to sell the horse to his uncle but he didn\u2019t reply to his uncle\u2019s letter and was busy at the auction. The defendant, Bindley conducted the auction and the nephew told him not to sell the horse but by accident, the defendant sold the horse to someone. Paul Felthouse received the letter of acceptance on 27th\u00a0<\/sup>February but the horse was sold on 25th\u00a0<\/sup>February. Paul Felthouse sued a case against the respondent in the tort of conversion i.e., using someone\u2019s property inconsistently with their rights.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Issues:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s argument:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The plaintiff argued that the contract was valid. Since the nephew had the intention to sell the horse and he didn\u2019t reply to his uncle\u2019s letter, which means he would accept the offer. The plaintiff was the owner of the horse, selling someone\u2019s property to other amounts to the tort of conversion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defendant\u2019s argument:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The defendant argued that for a valid contract the acceptance should be communicated. Mere silence doesn\u2019t mean that he had accepted the contract. Thus, there is no contract between the Felthouse and his nephew.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Observation:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It was observed that there was no contract between the uncle and his nephew for the horse. Silence didn\u2019t amount to acceptance, thus there is no acceptance of the offer. The acceptance of an offer should be communicated clearly. Even though the nephew has the intention to sell his horse, he failed to communicate the acceptance to his uncle.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Judgment:<\/u>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The court held that silence cannot amount to acceptance. For a valid contract, acceptance should be communicated clearly. The communication of acceptance after the auction is not considered as valid. There is no contract between the uncle and his nephew for the horse and Felthouse didn\u2019t own the horse.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Barathkumar K M | Sastra Deemed to be University Thanjavur\u00a0| 27th June 2020 Felthouse Vs Bindley Facts: Paul Felthouse told his nephew, John Felthouse, regarding buying his horse. Paul Felthouse stated in a letter that if he didn\u2019t hear any more from his nephew, John Felthouse, he would consider that his nephew accepted the order […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":167,"featured_media":2866,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[102,215],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n