Bench: Willes, Byles, and Keating J.
Issue:
The issue raised in this suit was whether silence amounts to acceptance or not; as the appellant was held responsible for tort of conversion on the ground that mere silence also means acceptance.
Facts:
- Respondent-cum-Plaintiff a builder residing in London and Appellant-cum-Defendant is an auctioneer residing at Tamworth.
- Respondent-cum-Plaintiff had a conversation with his nephew for purchase of a horse.
- Following the conversation, the nephew wrote a letter to the Respondent-cum-Plaintiff stating he wishes to sell the house but not less than 30 Guineas.
- In reply the Appellant-cum-Defendant wrote that he is ready to buy the horse for 30 Guineas and not less, and he can deliver the horse to his hometown Tamworth before 25th of February and stated that all the expenses for transportation shall be borne by the Respondent-cum-Plaintiff. But he applied a condition that if the he hears no reply from the him, he shall consider the horse his.
- After that the nephew told the Appellant-cum-Defendant about the offer but being busy in the auctions and under pressure of work, he forgot about the letter and offer.
- However, by accident the defendant sold the horse.
- Then, the Respondent-cum-Plaintiff filed a suit against Appellant-cum-Defendant for tort of conversion and recovered £33from the Respondent-cum-Plaintiff.
- Hence, the present appeal lies.
Argument raised by Appellant:
The Appellant-cum-Defendantargued that mere silence does not amount to acceptance and since, the Appellant-cum-Defendant never gave the acceptance he is not bound by the court. According to the Appellant-cum-Defendant there was no contract; so how can the ownership of horse can be transferred and the latter can be held accountable for tort of conversion.
Argument raised by Respondent:
The Respondent-cum-Plaintiffargued that at the time of sale of horse by the defendant-cum-appellant, the horse was property of the Respondent-cum-Plaintiff and such sale by the auctioneer is equivalent to tort of conversion on whose ground the respondent asked for £33 from the appellant as a compensation.
Judgment:
The court accepted the appeal and stated that there was no contract between the appellant and respondent related to the sale of horse. The court stated that mere silence does not amounts to acceptance and any such binding condition on the other party cannot be imposed without his/her wish or unwillingly. Silence does not amount to acceptance.
However, the nephew was willing for the sale of horse and showed his interest too, but they never entered into a contract. Hence, the nephew’s failure to accept the offer lapsed the formation of contract.
