▁in ▁comple ting ▁the ▁sale ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁communication ▁of ▁that ▁intention ▁until ▁before ▁the ▁horse ▁was ▁sold ▁at ▁au ction ▁on ▁ 2 5 ▁February . ▁The ▁nep hew ' s ▁letter ▁of ▁ 2 7 ▁February ▁which ▁was ▁submitted ▁as ▁evidence ▁by ▁Fel th ouse ▁was ▁jud ged ▁to ▁be ▁the ▁first ▁instance ▁of ▁communication ▁where ▁the ▁accept ance ▁was ▁communic ated ▁to ▁the ▁offer or ( F el th ouse ). And ▁by ▁this ▁time , ▁the ▁horse ▁had ▁already ▁been ▁sold . ▁According ly ▁Fel th ouse ▁had ▁no ▁interest ▁in ▁the ▁property . ▁ ▁Will es ▁J ▁delivered ▁the ▁lead ▁judgment . ▁ ▁The ▁result ▁was ▁aff ir med ▁in ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁Ex che quer ▁Chamber , ▁( 1 8 6 3 ) ▁ 7 ▁L T ▁ 8 3 5 . ▁ ▁See ▁also ▁English ▁contract ▁law ▁Bro g den ▁v ▁Metropolitan ▁Railway ▁Company ▁( 1 8 7 6 – 7 7 ) ▁L R ▁ 2 ▁App ▁Cas ▁ 6 6 6 ▁ ▁Notes ▁ ▁References ▁C ▁Miller , ▁‘ F el th ouse ▁v ▁Bind ley ▁Re vis ited ’ ▁( 1 9 7 2 ) ▁ 3 5 ▁Modern ▁Law ▁Review ▁ 4 8 9 ▁arg ues ▁that ▁the ▁decision ▁was ▁incorrect ▁because ▁all ▁the ▁evidence ▁showed ▁the ▁nep hew ▁was ▁willing , ▁and ▁he ▁had ▁posit ively ▁conducted ▁himself ▁to ▁that ▁effect . ▁He ▁even ▁arg ues ▁that ▁against ▁a ▁third ▁party , ▁the ▁fact ▁that ▁the ▁nep hew ▁was ▁willing ▁takes