▁nep hew , ▁John ▁Fel th ouse . ▁After ▁a ▁letter ▁from ▁the ▁nep hew ▁concerning ▁a ▁discussion ▁about ▁bu ying ▁the ▁horse , ▁the ▁uncle ▁replied ▁saying ▁ ▁" If ▁I ▁hear ▁no ▁more ▁about ▁him , ▁I ▁consider ▁the ▁horse ▁mine ▁at ▁£ 3 0 . 1 5 s ." ▁ ▁The ▁nep hew ▁did ▁not ▁reply . ▁He ▁was ▁busy ▁at ▁au ctions ▁on ▁his ▁farm ▁in ▁Tam worth . ▁He ▁told ▁the ▁man ▁running ▁the ▁au ctions , ▁William ▁Bind ley , ▁not ▁to ▁sell ▁the ▁horse . ▁But ▁by ▁accident , ▁Bind ley ▁did . ▁Uncle ▁Fel th ouse ▁then ▁su ed ▁Bind ley ▁in ▁the ▁tort ▁of ▁conversion ▁- ▁using ▁someone ▁else ' s ▁property ▁incons ist ently ▁with ▁their ▁rights . ▁But ▁for ▁the ▁Uncle ▁to ▁show ▁the ▁horse ▁was ▁his ▁property , ▁he ▁had ▁to ▁show ▁there ▁was ▁a ▁valid ▁contract . ▁Bind ley ▁argued ▁there ▁was ▁not , ▁since ▁the ▁nep hew ▁had ▁never ▁communic ated ▁his ▁accept ance ▁of ▁the ▁uncle ' s ▁offer . ▁ ▁Jud gment ▁The ▁court ▁ruled ▁that ▁Fel th ouse ▁did ▁not ▁have ▁ownership ▁of ▁the ▁horse ▁as ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁accept ance ▁of ▁the ▁contract . ▁Accept ance ▁must ▁be ▁communic ated ▁clearly ▁and ▁cannot ▁be ▁im posed ▁due ▁to ▁silence ▁of ▁one ▁of ▁the ▁parties . ▁The ▁uncle ▁had ▁no ▁right ▁to ▁imp ose ▁a ▁sale ▁through ▁silence ▁where by ▁the ▁contract ▁would ▁only ▁fail ▁by ▁rep udi ation . ▁Though ▁the ▁nep hew ▁expressed ▁interest