Felthouse v Bindley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Felthouse v Bindley
Court Court of Common Pleas
Citation(s) (1862) 11 Cb (NS) 869; [1862] EWHC CP J35; 142 ER 1037
Transcript(s) Full text of judgment
Judge(s) sitting Willes J, Byles J and Keating J
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35, is the leading English contract law case on the rule that one cannot impose an obligation on another to reject one 's offer. This is sometimes misleadingly expressed as a rule that "silence cannot amount to acceptance".
Later the case has been rethought, because it appeared that on the facts, acceptance was communicated by conduct (see, Brogden v Metropolitan Railway). Furthermore in Rust v Abbey Life Assurance Co Ltd[1] the Court of
…show more content…
It is clear, therefore, that the nephew in his own mind intended his uncle to have the horse at the price which he (the uncle) had named, £30 and 15s.: but he had not communicated such his intention to his uncle, or done anything to bind himself. Nothing, therefore, had been done to vest the property in the horse in the plaintiff down to the 25th of February, when the horse was sold by the defendant. It appears to me that, independently of the subsequent letters, there had been no bargain to pass the property in the horse to the plaintiff, and therefore that he had no right to complain of the sale.
Then, what is the effect of the subsequent correspondence? The letter of the auctioneer amounts to nothing. The more important letter is that of the nephew, of the 27th of February, which is relied on as shewing that he intended to accept and did accept the terms offered by his uncle 's letter of the 2nd of January. That letter, however, may be treated either as an acceptance then for the first time made by him, or as a memorandum of a bargain complete before the 25th of February, sufficient within the statute of frauds. It seems to me that the former is the more likely construction: and, if so, it is clear that the plaintiff cannot recover. But, assuming that there had been a complete parol bargain before the 25th of February, and that the letter of the 27th was a mere expression of the terms of that prior bargain, and not a bargain then for the first
Mr. Slim Jim verbally submitted an offer to Mr. Potbelly who proceeded to accept Mr. Slim Jims’ offer unequivocally (pg. 122). The “Basic Requirements of a Contract” (pg. 107) were completed. In this bilateral contract (pg. 107), “Communication of Acceptance” (pg. 123) was evident as Mr. Potbelly responded “Sure I’ll take it” when Mr. Slim Jim submitted an offer for the pottery and enthusiastically replied “I’ll take it!” when Mr. Slim Jim gave him an offer of cash for his home. As a result of this, Mr. Slim Jim is suing for the “right to obtain specific performance” asking that the agreement be upheld. Also, according to “admissions” (one of the “exceptions to the statutes of frauds” (pg. 175) Mr. Potbelly’s agreement should be upheld.
The Second Restatement of Contracts is very clear about the situations where acceptance is made by silence or exercise of dominion. Section 69 of the Second Restatement of Contracts provides, (1) Where an offeree fails to reply to an offer, his silence and inaction operate as an acceptance in the following cases only: (a) Where an offeree takes the benefit of offered services with reasonable opportunity to reject them and reason to know that they were offered with the expectation of compensation. (b) Where because of previous dealings or otherwise, it is reasonable that the offeree should notify the offeror if he does not intend to accept. (2) An offeree who does any act inconsistent with the offeror's ownership of offered property is bound in accordance with the offered terms unless they are manifestly unreasonable... Restatement (Second) of Contracts, §69. The core of the restatement is about the meeting of the mind and reasonableness, i.e. the implied consent or agreement by both parties. To sum up, this article clearly allows acceptance by silent action in the contracts of selling
Kitto J. verified that whether or not an existing contract is considered to have been rescinded, depends on the intention of the parties involved. When examining the two critical correspondences of 21st March 1952/ June 4th 1952, it was held that no intention by the defendant to discharge the previous 1951 contracts was found; the letters of offer and acceptance did not constitute a new and substituted contract, and hence all conditions of the earlier contracts were to be binding. Assuming that the contracts is of variation, the final substantial issue to be anlaysed was whether the Plaintiff's acceptance of the original contracts was effective for the Defendant to be in breach of its terms.
-The Reasoning: the face that the appellant did not like the fee indicated does not preclude the finding of a binding contract. Appellant intended to negotiate, but never did so. Appellant
15–1. Liquidated Damages. Carnack contracts to sell his house and lot to Willard for $100,000. The terms of the contract call for Willard to make a deposit of 10 percent of the purchase price as a down payment. The terms further stipulate that if the buyer breaches the contract, Carnack will retain the deposit as liquidated damages. Willard makes the deposit, but because her expected financing of the $90,000 balance falls through, she breaches the contract. Two weeks later, Carnack sells the house and lot to Balkova for $105,000. Willard demands her $10,000 back, but Carnack refuses, claiming that Willard’s breach and the contract terms entitle him to keep the deposit. Discuss who is correct. (See Damages.)
The evidence showed that the contract to purchase appellant’s business and the promissory note were signed only by Joe Alexander on behalf of the corporation. Harris’ wife testified that appellees were not present when the contract was signed.
The plaintiff, during the signing of the contract, acted in a fraudulent manner. He took advantage of the defendant’s excitement to offer the product at exorbitant amounts. He did not clearly explain to them what the terms they had agreed to implied. Courts have not shied away from invalidating contracts when it becomes apparent that one party benefitted unfairly at the end of the stipulated term. This position was held in the case of Derby v. Derby. In this case, the court argued that Mrs. Derby had used fraudulent means to ensure that Mr. Derby signed the legal documents that conveyed the property to her. Mrs. Derby had failed to explain to Mr. Derby what the documents represented, and their effect. Also, Mr. Derby had acted on misinformed belief that Mrs. Derby would return home if he (Mr. Derby signed the documents. The court ruled for Mr. Derby. This is a similar situation that the defendants, in this case, find them in. The plaintiff, while presenting the contract to them to sign, failed to explain to them the effect (Roos, 2012). Because the effect brought about gross disparity, the contract qualifies to be termed as being
Facts: This case emerges from a sale of property in Baltimore City, due to the execution of the letter of intent. Eileen W. Norkunas, the defendant, is the owner of a property known as 835 McHenry Street, Baltimore, Maryland, and Rebecca Cochran, who is the plaintiff, along with Robert Cochran and Robert and Hope Grove, were interested in buying her property. The Buyers, aided by a Real estate agent, send a letter of intent to the Seller, indicating the terms for the offer.
Foster case (897 S.W.2d 80, 86 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)) saying that, "if the seller decides to resell in a reasonable time after the breach, the price obtained is some evidence of the market value." By referencing this case, the court is able to rule on the secondary issue brought up by the defendant. The district court, to insure consistency with the law, uses precious rulings to help guide their decision.
Michael Ferrell, the offeror, liked the offer so he voluntarily accepted the offer from the offeree, which is Elizabeth. The offer is valid because the offeror had serious intention to sell to the offeree, the terms of the offer is reasonable to both parties at that time, and the offer must be communicated to the offeree. And most importantly both parties mutual assent to the same bargain. Both parties agreed the consideration, which is usually is defined as the value given in return for a promise, of the transaction to the very end of the contract to be fulfilled and valid. Elizabeth made a mistake of not knowing the market value of her product. Mistakes can be from both parties or one party, but either way, that does not mean the contract can be avoidable. If Elizabeth made a “mistake of fact”, instead of “mistake of value,” Elizabeth could have obtain back her husband’s Mantle baseball card. In Elizabeth’s defense, she was under emotional distress because she wanted to to cope with the loss of her deceased spouse so she incoherently or coherently taught that to get rid the house of the personal belongings of her lost loved one. It’s possible for Elizabeth to have her thoughts not well-cleared and conscience since losing a loved one can cause extraordinary emotions, in which, Elizabeth was very clear of that. In conclusion, Michael Ferrell can keep the Mantle baseball card, but
Analysis: This situation should belong to Offer and Acceptance Section. An offer is not valid until it is received by the offered, and the offeror is not limited by the offer until such time as it is accepted according to Communication of an Offer. So in this case, Bishop received the letter on May 3rd, before May 3rd, it is not bounded. On may 22nd, Bishop wrote to this company and accepted this offer. According to Acceptance of an Offer, the acceptance must take the form if certain words or acts in accordance with the offer that will indicate to the offeror that the offeree has accepted the offer. In addition, the acceptance of the offer takes place when the letter of acceptance, properly addressed and the postage paid, is placed in the postbox or post office. So for Bishop (defendant), it obeys the rules of an offer and acceptance. For Armstrong Aggregates Company (plaintiff), they cannot change their offer by increasing the offer because Bishop had already accepted the offer and sent to this company on May 22nd. Meanwhile, the company did not communicate with Bishop about change the price. Therefore, this action is not valid and this company should still accept this offer at $180.
In order to attempt and find a solution to this question, the court decided to address a sub issue. Could Taylor’s mistake on the bid be a result of a material mistake. If so, it would fall within the conditions of
The complainant, N is the husband and legal guardian (since March 3, 2009) of A; A is the sister of M. On June 12, 1989 B, the mother of A and M, retained Attorney J, a family friend, to assist in the execution of a deed. The deed transferred the ownership of Barbara's home at 27 Elm to Al and M. Shortly after on October 16, 1989, another deed for the same property was executed transferring a portion of the property back to Barbara. This document is purported to contain the signatures of B, Al, and M Helena. On January 25, 2006
Under section 3 of the Sale of Goods Ordinances (SOGO), the contract of sale between John and Charles is existed. John, who is the seller, transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to Charles, who is the buyer, for a money consideration, which is $700,000. The consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate which means that the consideration is valid in this case. Since John needed $700,000 to raise funds, the goods sold at that time were sufficient for John. When an offer is accepted, an agreement comes into existence, which cannot be revoked. John agreed and sold some of his stock to Charles for a ridiculously low price,
Introduction: In this assignment I will go over a few legal terms in relation to contract law. I will also talk about a few precedents that help explain the law.