Story Case

The Ferry Monthly Magazine sent the following offer to Lopert:

"July 18, 1913. My Dear Sir: Your subscription to our magazine has expired and, unless we hear to the contrary from you, we shall renew it at last year's rate.

Yours truly, (Signed) Ferry Mag. Co".

Lopert did not send an answer to this communication, but he did not want the magazine and refused to receive it from the postman.

At the end of the year the magazine company sued him for the subscription price, claiming that his refusal to answer their offer was an acceptance. Lopert claims that the company could not impose upon him the duty to refuse an offer and that there was no acceptance.

Which party won?

Ruling Court Case. Paul Felthouse Vs. John Felthouse, Volume 11 Common Bench Reports, New Series, Pags 868

Paul Felthouse was a builder residing in London. John Felthouse, his nephew, determined to sell out all his farming stock. In a conversation between John and Paul in regard to the sale of a certain horse, John offered him the horse for 30 guineas. Paul replied that he would give 30 pounds. John mistakenly thought he accepted his offer, and replied that the contract was made. He was later informed of the mistake which had been made, and wrote to Paul that he had not intended to sell the horse for less than 30 guineas, and that he would not sell her for less. To this letter his uncle wrote the following in reply:

"Dear Nephew:

Your price, I admit, was 30 guineas. I offered 30 pounds, never more, and you said the horse was mine. However, as there may be a mistake about it, I will split the difference, 30 pounds 15 shillings. If I hear no more about it, I consider the horse mine at 30 pounds 15 shillings.

Paul Felthouse".

John Felthouse did not make any reply to this letter; an express acceptance was not made to this new offer. Bindley, the auctioneer, was told by John not to sell this particular horse. However, when the sale was in progress, Bindley forgot this instruction and sold the horse. Suit was brought against John by Paul Felthouse for having sold his horse.

John Felthouse contended that he was not liable because no contract was ever made between them; he contended that one person cannot force another to speak or make his silence an acceptance of a contract.

Decision

The general rule is, that, silence on the part of an offeree is not assent to a contract. An offeror cannot impose the duty upon the offeree to refuse a contract in order to prevent its becoming binding upon him. Thus, in this case, no contract was ever made between John and Paul for the sale and purchase of this horse. Therefore the sale of this horse made by John was no wrong as against Paul; therefore, John is not liable to Paul.

Therefore, judgment was given for John Felthouse, the defendant.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

As a general rule, silence alone on the part of a person to whom an offer is made is not an acceptance of the offer, even though the person making the offer may state that silence shall constitute an acceptance. The offeror has no right to impose upon the offeree any such duty; and the law will not permit it. The law says that a person cannot be put under a duty to speak, to prevent his being bound to a contract against his will. In the Story Case, Lopert was under no duty to write to the magazine company that he did not accept its offer. Consequently, there was no contract between them. In such a case, however, Lopert should not receive the magazines from the postman or the postoffice. He should direct the postal authorities to return the magazines to the company.