Acceptance by conduct:
Can there be acceptance not by word or writing but by conduct?
Unilateral Contracts:
- acceptance takes place through performance of a prescribed act
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]
Bilateral Contracts:
- Can be accepted by conduct = conduct needs to be clear
- Does it work for complex transactions?
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877)
Acceptance by silence:
- Can you ever accept a contract by silence?
Felthouse V Bindley (1862)
Facts of the case:
- The complainant, Paul Felthouse, had a conversation with his nephew, John
Felthouse, about buying his horse.
- After their discussion, the uncle replied by letter stating that if he didn’t hear
anymore from his nephew concerning the horse, he would consider acceptance of
the order done and he would own the horse.
- His nephew did not reply to this letter and was busy at auctions.
- The defendant, Mr Bindley, ran the auctions and the nephew advised him not to sell
the horse.
- However, by accident he ended up selling the horse to someone else.
Issue:
- Paul Felthouse sued Mr Bindley in the tort of conversion, with it necessary to show
that the horse was his property, in order to prove there was a valid contract.
- Mr Bindley argued there was no valid contract for the horse, since the nephew had
not communicated his acceptance of the complainant’s offer.
The issue in this case was whether silence or a failure to reject an offer amount to
acceptance.
Held:
- There was no acceptance of the contract= Acceptance must be communicated clearly
and cannot be imposed due to silence of one of the parties.
Can there be acceptance not by word or writing but by conduct?
Unilateral Contracts:
- acceptance takes place through performance of a prescribed act
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]
Bilateral Contracts:
- Can be accepted by conduct = conduct needs to be clear
- Does it work for complex transactions?
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877)
Acceptance by silence:
- Can you ever accept a contract by silence?
Felthouse V Bindley (1862)
Facts of the case:
- The complainant, Paul Felthouse, had a conversation with his nephew, John
Felthouse, about buying his horse.
- After their discussion, the uncle replied by letter stating that if he didn’t hear
anymore from his nephew concerning the horse, he would consider acceptance of
the order done and he would own the horse.
- His nephew did not reply to this letter and was busy at auctions.
- The defendant, Mr Bindley, ran the auctions and the nephew advised him not to sell
the horse.
- However, by accident he ended up selling the horse to someone else.
Issue:
- Paul Felthouse sued Mr Bindley in the tort of conversion, with it necessary to show
that the horse was his property, in order to prove there was a valid contract.
- Mr Bindley argued there was no valid contract for the horse, since the nephew had
not communicated his acceptance of the complainant’s offer.
The issue in this case was whether silence or a failure to reject an offer amount to
acceptance.
Held:
- There was no acceptance of the contract= Acceptance must be communicated clearly
and cannot be imposed due to silence of one of the parties.
