Felthouse+v+Bindley

Facts

 * The plaintiff, Paul Felthouse wrote to his nephew John on 2 February offering to buy his horse for a stated sum. He also said – If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at that price.
 * The nephew did not reply but told the auctioneer who was selling the horse that it was to be kept out of the sale. The defendant auctioneer unintentionally sold the horse and was then sued by the Uncle in conversion – converting the property of the Uncle to his own use.

Decision

 * Wiles J - The action failed as the nephew had not accepted the uncle’s offer.
 * NB in particular the finding – HPR 74- that:

“the uncle had no right to impose the sale of his horse” upon the nephew on pre-set terms”


 * Wiles – HPR 74-75 - It did not matter that there was evidence that the nephew did in fact intend to sell the horse to the uncle at that price – the fact remained that “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 (uncle) down to 25 Feb when the horse was sold by the defendant (auctioneer). It appears to me that … there had been no bargain to pass the property in the horse to the plaintiff, and therefore he had no right to complain of the sale (HPR 75 top of page)