Case Summary: Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) | Silence is not a Valid Acceptance

Background

Paul Felthouse (the plaintiff) negotiated with his nephew, John Felthouse, for the purchase of a horse. There was a dispute between them regarding the price as Paul considered it to be £30 while John insisted it was 30 guineas. However, on January 2, 1862, Paul sent a letter to John in which he suggested a compromising price of £30 15s, and he said:

"If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse is mine at £30 15s."

John did not reply to this letter. As a preliminary step to auctioning his farming stock, John instructed the auctioneer, William Bindley, to remove the horse from the list because it was already sold. Bindley, nevertheless, mistakenly put the horse in the auction and sold it for £33. After the auction, John wrote Paul, stating that the horse belonged to him. Paul then complained to Bindley, alleging that the horse was his property at the time of the auction.

Issues

(i) Whether there was a legally enforceable contract between Felthouse and his nephew.

(ii) Whether silence can constitute acceptance of an offer.

(iii) Whether the auctioneer, William Bindley, was liable for the wrongful sale of the horse.

Judgment

The court relied on the principle laid down in the case of Stockdale v. Dunlop, which states that the acceptance of the offer by parties cannot retroactively bind the third party who acted concerning the subject matter during the interim period before the acceptance was communicated. Justice Keating held that the plaintiff had no valid claim over the horse at the time of the sale, as no contract had been formed to transfer ownership of the horse to the plaintiff.

The correspondence between the parties showed no consensus as idem for the transfer of ownership of the horse to the plaintiff. While answering this, the court relied on the court Smith v. Neale regarding the sufficiency of agreements under the statute of fraud.

While answering the second question, the court held that silence does not constitute an acceptance of a contract; for a valid and binding contract to exist, there has to be a clear and unequivocal communication of acceptance from the offeree to the offeror.

The statement made by Paul Felthouse—"If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine"—was legally insufficient to explicitly impose an obligation on the nephew to reject the offer.

The court said that acceptance cannot be presumed based on the offeree's inaction or silence, as this would undermine the principle of mutual assent, which is fundamental to contract formation.

The court ruled that William Bindley was not liable for the sale because Felthouse could not establish that the horse legally belonged to him. Without proof of ownership, there was no wrongful conversion.

Case Insights and Principles

In the case of Felthouse v. Bindley, the court reaffirmed one of the principles of contract law, which is unequivocal acceptance by both parties to form a valid and binding contract. The case highlighted that acceptance must be communicated to the offeror to form a valid contract. The court considered precedents like Smith v. Neale, which emphasized the need for a "meeting of the minds" to establish acceptance, but found that these principles were not satisfied in this instance.

The court determined that while there was written correspondence between Paul Felthouse (the plaintiff) and his nephew, these exchanges were insufficient to demonstrate mutual consent to form a binding contract before the sale of the horse in question.

Although the case reaffirms one of the cardinal principles of the contract law i.e. the offeror can waive the need to have any formal communication of the acceptance, even if it is accepted that explicit communication is enough to finalise a bilateral contract, the question arises of whether silence combined with mental agreement could be sufficient when the offeror claims to have waived the need for formal notification. This question was answered by Lord Denning in the case of Robophone Facilities v. Blank, the court held that the agreement should come into force and become binding only when the party signs the contract's acceptance. Mere mental acceptance is not enough for an agreement to be binding.

Indian Context

In the Indian case, the general principles of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, hereinafter “Act”, state that the acceptance should be communicated to the offeror to form a valid contract.

According to Section 2(b) of the Act, a proposal is accepted only when the person to whom it is made signifies their assent. The term "signifies" under the provision highlights the importance of communicating acceptance to the offeror. Furthermore, Section 7 of the Act mandates that a contract is formed only when the terms of acceptance are communicated.

The decision of the Felthouse v. Bindley appears to be reaffirmed by the Indian Courts, too; the Bombay High Court, in the case of Gaddar Mal v. Tata Industrial Bank, although it emphasised that the acceptance of the proposal under section 9 of the Act could be made either through explicit actions or through the implied actions as specified by the parties, it's standing on silence remains undiverted from the English Contrat Law, the court says “that cannot be mere silence. Assent must be by express words or positive conduct. The law casts no duty upon the person to whom an offer is made to reply to that offer”.

Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal, held that the offeror cannot impose upon the offeree an obligation to accept, nor proclaim that silence of the offeree shall be deemed consent.

A contract being the result of an offer made by one party and acceptance of that very offer by the other, acceptance of the offer and intimation of acceptance by some external manifestation which the law regards as sufficient is necessary.

Conclusion

Felthouse v. Bindley stands as a cornerstone in contract law, emphasizing the necessity of unequivocal communication of acceptance for forming a binding agreement.

The principle that silence cannot constitute acceptance reinforces the doctrine of mutual consent, ensuring that contractual obligations arise only when both parties willingly agree to the terms. This principle has been consistently upheld in Indian jurisprudence under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as reflected in cases like Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal, where the courts firmly established that silence or inaction cannot be interpreted as consent.

Important Link