CONTRACT CASE LAW Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) – Case Summary & Explanation

By v07970953 | Updated: Feb. 16, 2025, 10:40 a.m.

Loading...

Slideshow Video

Sign up for free!

SHARE THE AWESOMENESS

YouTube Video Description – Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) Case Explained 📜 Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) – Silence is NOT Acceptance! ⚖️ In this video, we break down the landmark contract law case Felthouse v. Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35; 142 ER 1037, which established the important legal principle that silence cannot be considered acceptance of an offer. 🚀 What You’ll Learn: ✅ Case Background – What happened between John Felthouse and his nephew? ✅ The Auction Error – How did the horse get sold by mistake? ✅ Court’s Ruling – Why did Felthouse lose the case? ✅ Key Legal Impact – How does this case still affect contract law today? 🔔 Don't forget to LIKE, SHARE, and SUBSCRIBE for more legal case explanations! 📌 Follow us for more legal insights!

Education

create your own animated videos for free

_abc cc

* Powtoon is not liable for any 3rd party content used. It is the responsibility of each user to comply with 3rd party copyright laws.

Embed code

Select a size, the embed code changes based on your selection.

_abc Powtoon Transcript

Nephew
Auctioneer(Bindley)
Paul Felthouse
FELTHOUSE.  Vs.  BINDLEY 1862
I want to sell my horse 
Nephew
Nephew
Nephew hired an autioneer to sell his horse 
Auctioneer(Bindley)
After knowing that his nephew wants to sell his horse, he wrote a letter to his nephew for purchasing the horse 
Uncle Paul
Uncle paul sent a letter to his nephew stating that he want to buy his horse in 30 Euros and said "If I hear no more about the horse i would consider horse to be mine"
Nephew (reading the letter sent by his uncle)
Bindley, do  not sell the horse
Nephew
Auctioneer(Bindley)
auctioning
Auctioneer(Bindley)
auctioning
Bindley mistakenly sold the horse to someone else while selling other farm animals
I Instructed auctioneer not to sell the horse but he mistakenly sold the horse 
Nephew
Uncle Paul
John Felthouse sued Bindley for "conversion" (wrongful sale of property) because he believed he already owned the horse.
He argued that there was a valid contract between him and his nephew.
John Felthouse (the uncle) believed that since his nephew did not reject the offer, the horse was his.
William Felthouse (the nephew) never explicitly communicated acceptance. The court had to determine whether a valid contract existed before the horse was sold at auction.
The court ruled against Felthouse because no valid contract had been formed.
Since William never communicated acceptance, the uncle did not own the horse at the time of the auction
Therefore, Bindley could not be held liable for selling it.
Felthouse lost the case because silence is not acceptance in contract law.

This case set a major precedent that acceptance must be clearly communicated for a contract to be valid.
Paul Felthouse