And uncles letter did not
render the nephew's failure
to rely unequivocal since
failure to reply is common
Mere coincidence human weakness
of intention was
not enough (see:
Facts: D, auctioneer, was Cheshire, Fifoot
instructed to sell stock of John and Firmston) Silence is usually
Felthouse, J's uncle interested equivocal (uncertain/
in buying horse. Uncle wrote to ambiguous) to consent
J saying 'I will pay this price, if I
hear nothing more from you I Held: uncle had no
will consider him mine'. J did property in the horse,
not reply. J instructed D to silence on J's part could
remove horse from auction, not amount to an 1) If there has been a course
horse accidentally sold acceptance of uncle's offer of dealing whereby the offeree
Facts: Taxpayer in negotiations with
has taken benefit of the
Revenue over tax. In Aug 1991, made
services offered - offers
an offer to Revenue to pay future
silence (or conduct) can
amounts in instalments commencing
constitute acceptance
Feb 92. Tax collector indicated he
would seek aproval and inform
taxpayer if unnacceptable. No further Felthouse v Bindley
communication unil Oct 91 when
payment was demanded in full
2) If it is the offeree who is
attempting to hold the offeror
Exceptions to the silence
Re Selectmove Silence as acceptance rule in bilateral contracts
to the offeror's stipulation,
then silence will constitute
acceptance
Held: Taxpayer argued
binding contract, and E.g. it would be a
revenue accepted proposal Taylor v Allen 3) If it was the offeree rather different result if
about installments. However than the offeror who in F&B the uncle
CA rejected this argument suggested the silence, then tried to deny the
offer's silence would contract
constitute acceptance
They rejected this on the Held: Offeree did not accept an
Facts: The claimant took his
basis that tax collector had offer by an insurance company to
car out for a drive, claiming
no authority to commit provide car insurance merely by
he was covered by an
Revenue to suggested taking on the road - where there
insurance company’s
contract. Silence does not was evidence that the offeree
temporary cover notice.
amount to consent intended to take out insurance
with another company
However, they accepted
Could driving the car
position may be different
constitute acceptance But had that evidence had Acceptance inferred from
where offeree does posess
of the notice of 15 not been available, taking conduct (silence) can only
necessary authority to
days of cover? the car on the road would have effect if the offer
contract
have amounted to performed the act in
acceptance (obiter) question with the intention of
a accepting the offer
render the nephew's failure
to rely unequivocal since
failure to reply is common
Mere coincidence human weakness
of intention was
not enough (see:
Facts: D, auctioneer, was Cheshire, Fifoot
instructed to sell stock of John and Firmston) Silence is usually
Felthouse, J's uncle interested equivocal (uncertain/
in buying horse. Uncle wrote to ambiguous) to consent
J saying 'I will pay this price, if I
hear nothing more from you I Held: uncle had no
will consider him mine'. J did property in the horse,
not reply. J instructed D to silence on J's part could
remove horse from auction, not amount to an 1) If there has been a course
horse accidentally sold acceptance of uncle's offer of dealing whereby the offeree
Facts: Taxpayer in negotiations with
has taken benefit of the
Revenue over tax. In Aug 1991, made
services offered - offers
an offer to Revenue to pay future
silence (or conduct) can
amounts in instalments commencing
constitute acceptance
Feb 92. Tax collector indicated he
would seek aproval and inform
taxpayer if unnacceptable. No further Felthouse v Bindley
communication unil Oct 91 when
payment was demanded in full
2) If it is the offeree who is
attempting to hold the offeror
Exceptions to the silence
Re Selectmove Silence as acceptance rule in bilateral contracts
to the offeror's stipulation,
then silence will constitute
acceptance
Held: Taxpayer argued
binding contract, and E.g. it would be a
revenue accepted proposal Taylor v Allen 3) If it was the offeree rather different result if
about installments. However than the offeror who in F&B the uncle
CA rejected this argument suggested the silence, then tried to deny the
offer's silence would contract
constitute acceptance
They rejected this on the Held: Offeree did not accept an
Facts: The claimant took his
basis that tax collector had offer by an insurance company to
car out for a drive, claiming
no authority to commit provide car insurance merely by
he was covered by an
Revenue to suggested taking on the road - where there
insurance company’s
contract. Silence does not was evidence that the offeree
temporary cover notice.
amount to consent intended to take out insurance
with another company
However, they accepted
Could driving the car
position may be different
constitute acceptance But had that evidence had Acceptance inferred from
where offeree does posess
of the notice of 15 not been available, taking conduct (silence) can only
necessary authority to
days of cover? the car on the road would have effect if the offer
contract
have amounted to performed the act in
acceptance (obiter) question with the intention of
a accepting the offer
