# data[].attributes.body
Facts

In this case of Weatherby vs Banham, racing Calendars were being supplied to Mr. Westbrook and after his death, the defendant kept receiving the calendars without letting the the claimant know about Mr. Westbrook's death.

Legal Issues:

The legal issues were whether silence of the defendant should be considered as acceptance or not.

Judgement

It was held in the case that the defendant should receive the calendars and in this case silence was taken as acceptance. This case was an exception

Rafid Rayan

ID: 223011228

# data[].attributes.body
Mansura Islam

223011115

Case facts-
The accuser Weatherby had delivered oats to the defendant Banham, a horse dealer, with the idea that Banham would feed the oats to his horses, according to the case circumstances in Weatherby v. Banham. Weatherby sued Banham for the full value of the grains when he later sold some of the oats to a third party without getting his permission.

Legal Issues:

Whether Banham could sell the oats that Weatherby had given him without first getting Weatherby's permission was the primary issue in Weatherby v. Banham. In this case, the parties' legitimate contract and property rights were in threat.

Decision:

According to the verdict, Banham needed Weatherby's consent before selling the oats to a third party.

# data[].attributes.headline
Case: Weatherby v. Banham (1832) 172 ER 950

# data[].attributes.subject
Case: Weatherby v. Banham (1832) 172 ER 950

# data[].attributes.body
Name: Nusrat Jahan Noor Elma

Id: 213011075

Case Facts: The plaintiffs were publishers of the Racing Calendar and had been supplying copies to Mr. Westbrook. After Mr. Westbrook's death, the defendant inherited his property and moved into his house. Unaware of Mr. Westbrook's demise, the plaintiffs continued sending the Racing Calendar to him. The defendant received the calendars but did not express any intention to return them.

Legal Issues:

Whether the defendant's silence and acceptance of the Racing Calendars, despite being addressed to the deceased Mr. Westbrook, constituted acceptance of an offer, thus rendering the defendant liable for payment.

Whether the defendant's use of the Racing Calendars implied acceptance and obligation to pay for them, despite being addressed to the deceased.

Judgment: Lord Tenterden CJ held that the defendant's acceptance of and failure to return the Racing Calendars, notwithstanding their addressed recipient being deceased, amounted to an acceptance of the offer. The defendant's use of the calendars further indicated acceptance, making the defendant liable for payment. Consequently, the action to recover the price of the Racing Calendars supplied to the defendant was deemed maintainable.

# data[].attributes.headline
Weatherby v Banham [1832] 172 ER 950 Case 

# data[].attributes.subject
Weatherby v Banham [1832] 172 ER 950 Case 

# data[].attributes.body
Facts: In this case the plaintiff Weatherby had sold oats to the horse dealer Banham. The horse dealer Banham had sold the oats to a third party with out taking any legal permission from Weatherby. Thus, prompting Weatherby to file a lawsuit against the horse dealer Banham.

Legal Issues: The main issue was the sale of oats that Weatherby had sold solely to Banham to feed his horses was also sold to a third party by Banham with out the consent of Weatherby and thus jeopardizing their consent. Banham had no right to sell the oats to a third party.

Verdict: The court ruled the judgment to be precise that Banham needed approval of Weatherby to sell to a third party. The horse dealer needed consent to sell to third party and thus, Banham had no legal right to sell the grains to a third party.

NAME- FAHIM RAHMAN

ID NO- 222011130

# data[].attributes.body
Case Facts:

In Weatherby v Banham, Mr. Banham leased a property from Mr. Weatherby for the purpose of operating a tavern. The lease contained a clause prohibiting the sale of wines and spirits, except for those purchased from Weatherby at a specified price. Banham sold spirits not obtained from Weatherby, and Weatherby sought an injunction to prevent Banham from violating the terms of the lease.

Legal Issues:

The primary legal issue in Weatherby v Banham was whether Banham's sale of spirits not acquired from Weatherby breached the terms of the lease agreement. Additionally, the case raised questions about the enforceability of such restrictive clauses in leases and the extent to which they could be upheld in court.

Judgment:

The court held in favor of Mr. Weatherby, granting the injunction to prevent Mr. Banham from selling spirits not purchased from Weatherby. The court found that Banham's actions violated the terms of the lease agreement, which expressly prohibited the sale of wines and spirits not obtained from Weatherby. The judgment affirmed the principle that parties to a contract, including leases, are bound by the terms they agree to, and breaches of these terms can be remedied through legal action such as injunctions.

Hasan Musanna Sarker

ID: 223011029

# data[].attributes.body
Case Facts:

The case involved a dispute between Weatherby, a horse dealer, and Banham, a buyer.

Weatherby sold a horse to Banham, and the agreement included a warranty that the horse was sound.

However, after the sale, it was discovered that the horse was not sound.

Legal Issues:

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the seller, Weatherby, could be held liable for breaching the warranty of soundness.

Another issue might have been the extent of the buyer's reliance on the seller's warranty and whether it was a material factor in the purchase decision.

Judgment of the Case:

The court held in favor of Banham, the buyer. It was established that the seller, Weatherby, had breached the warranty of soundness by selling a horse that was not as described.

The judgment likely resulted in Weatherby being required to compensate Banham for any losses incurred as a result of the breach of warranty, such as the diminished value of the horse or any expenses related to its care or treatment.

This case underscores the importance of sellers honoring their warranties and accurately representing the goods they sell, particularly in transactions involving valuable items like horses.

Saiful alam jim

223011011

# data[].attributes.body
Mohammad Shehab Hassan

Id- 223011020

Case Details for Weatherbyv. Banham (1832):
Mr. Weatherby sold a horse to Mr. Banham in the 1832 case of Weatherby v. Banham. The horse was eventually discovered to be unsound, though, which caused the parties to argue. The horse's state at the time of sale constituted the central issue in this case.

Legal issues:-

Whether Banham had to pay Weatherby the entry fee since he had to withdraw from the sweepstakes.
Whether Weatherby and Banham have a legal duty to pay the admission charge under their contract.

Verdict:

The court ruled that Banham lacked the authority to sell the oats to a third party without Weatherby's approval.

# data[].attributes.body
The case facts of Weatherby v. Banham state that the plaintiff Weatherby had given oats to the defendant Banham, a horse dealer, with the intention of having Banham feed the oats to his horses. When Banham later sold some of the oats to a third party without his consent, Weatherby filed a lawsuit against him for the full worth of the grains.

Legal Issues: The main question raised by Weatherby v. Banham concerned whether Banham could sell the oats that Weatherby had given him without first obtaining Weatherby's consent. Property rights and the existence of a valid contract between the parties were at stake in this.

Decision: The ruling stated that Banham could not have sold the oats to a third party without Weatherby's approval.

Name: Md. Reza Sarwar

ID: 223011155

# data[].attributes.body
An issue that arises is whether silence can amount to acceptance. In Fraser v. Everett (1899), silence does not amount to acceptance; there is no rule of law like the saying ‘Silence gives consent’ and omission to reply does not constitute a waiver. In Felthouse v. Bindley (1862), the plaintiff wrote to his nephew, offering to buy the nephew's horse and adding, "If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse to be mine at..." The nephew did not reply, and no money was paid. The horse remained in the nephew's possession.

The issue is whether there was a concluded contract between the plaintiff and his nephew for the sale of the horse. The court held that there was no binding contract. There was no acceptance of the offer by the nephew, and the plaintiff had no right to impose upon his nephew the sale of his horse by silence, and silence did not amount to acceptance.

However, there is an exception to the general rule, as stated in the case of Weatherby v. Banham (1832). “Silence" was held to have legal consequences, especially where reasonable opportunities exist to reject the offer but the acceptor has failed to do so. In this case, the plaintiffs were the publishers of the Racing Calendar. For some years, they supplied a copy of the Racing Calendar to one Mr. Westbrook. Upon the death of Mr. Westbrook, the defendant succeeded to his property and went to live at his house. The plaintiffs, not knowing of Mr. Westbrook's death, continued to send the Racing Calendar, which was directed to him. The calendars were received by the defendant, and there was no evidence that the defendant had the intention to return them.

The plaintiffs subsequently brought an action to recover the price of the Racing Calendars supplied to the defendant. Lord Tenterden CJ held that if the defendant receives the books and uses them, I think that the action is maintainable. These books come addressed to the deceased gentleman, whose estate has come to the defendant, and he keeps the books. I think that the defendant is liable.

# data[].attributes.headline
Weatherby v Banham( 1832) 172 ER 950 Case

# data[].attributes.subject
Weatherby v Banham( 1832) 172 ER 950 Case

# data[].attributes.body
Facts: In the case Mr. Weatherby the plaintiff had given some oats to Mr. Banham, a horse dealer thinking that he would use the oats to feed his horses. Weatherby filed a lawsuit against Banham claiming that he had sold the oats to another party without his permission.

Legal Issues: In the case of Weatherby v Banham, the main legal issue is that Banham had delivered to the party without Weatherby's permission.

Judgment: The case ruled in favor of Weatherby that Banham needed his permission before selling the oats to a third party.

Name: Uttsho Roy

ID : 223011248

# data[].attributes.body
Case facts:

Mr. Westbrook had been receiving copies of the Racing Calendar from the plaintiffs, who were the publishers, for many years. After Mr. Westbrook died, the defendant inherited his property and continued to live in his home. The plaintiffs, unaware of Mr. Westbrook's death, continued to send Racing Calendars to him. The defendant received the calendars, and there was no evidence of any intent to return them.

Legal issues:

The key legal issue was the defendant's liability for the cost of the Racing Calendars. It came down to whether the defendant, by receiving and using calendars addressed to the deceased Mr. Westbrook, incurred a legal obligation to pay for them.

Judgement:

Lord Tenterden CJ ruled that if the defendant received and used the books, the action could be maintained. The fact that the books were addressed to the deceased gentleman, whose estate had been transferred to the defendant, did not absolve him of liability. By keeping and using the books without indicating an intention to return them, the defendant was clearly liable for the Racing Calendars' purchase price.

The case establishes that silence or passive acceptance, especially when reasonable opportunities exist to reject an offer, can have legal consequences, and in this case, it resulted in the defendant being held liable for the price of the received Racing Calendars.

Mst. Afrin Jahan

I

D: 223011143

# data[].attributes.body
Case Facts: In Wetherby v. Banham, plaintiff Wetherby supplied oats to defendant Banham, a horse dealer, with the intent that the oats be fed to Banham's horses. However, Banham later sold some oats to a third party without Weatherby's consent, and Weatherby sued Banham for the value of the oats.

Legal Issue: The main legal question in Wetherby v. Banham was whether Banham had the right to sell the oats that Wetherby supplied him without Wetherby's consent; It involves questions of property rights and whether there was a valid contract between the parties

Ruling: In the ruling, the court held that Banham had no right to sell the oats to third parties without Weatherby's consent.

Humaira Binte Abdul Hakim

I'd: 223011089

# data[].attributes.body
Name Marzanur Rahman

Id 223011284

Case Details: In the case of Weatherby v. Banham, the plaintiff Weatherby had given some oats to the defendant Banham, a horse dealer, with the idea that Banham would feed the oats to his horses. Weatherby filed a lawsuit against Banham, claiming that he had sold some of the oats to a third party without getting his permission.

Legal issues: The primary legal question in Weatherby v. Banham concerned whether Banham could sell the oats that Weatherby had delivered to him without Weatherby's permission. This question touched on issues of property rights and the existence of a legally binding agreement between the parties.

Judgment: The court ruled in the judgment that Banham needed Weatherby's permission before selling the oats to a third party.

# data[].attributes.body
Fact: The Racing Calendar folks made a horse racing magazine. They sent it to the horse dealer without asking. Even though the dealer knew it wasn't a gift, he kept it for his business. Now, the Racing Calendar people want him to pay for it.

Legal Issue: The problem in court was whether the person had to pay for the magazine even if he didn't ask for it. The magazine people said he acted like he agreed to pay. He said he didn't agree or use it. The court agreed with the magazine people. They said he could have said no to the magazine, but he kept it and used it, so he had to pay. The court didn't believe his claim that he didn't find it useful for his work. The court ordered him to pay the magazine's cost.

Judgement: The court decided in favor of the people who complained. They said the person being complained about had a chance to do something, but didn't.

MD Maharab Hasan Sany

223011091

# data[].attributes.body
Case Facts:

In the case of Weatherby v. Banham, the plaintiffs were the main publishers of the racing calendar. For the past few years, the plaintiffs supplied a copy of the racing calendar to Mr.Westbrook. After the death of Mr. Westbrook, The defendant took over the property of Mr.Westbrook and started to live at his house. The plaintiffs continued to supply the racing calendar as they were unaware of Mr.Brook's death. The defendant continued to receive the racing calendar in favor of Mr. Wrestbrook, and no evidence was found that the defendant ever offered to return them. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to get the defendant reimbursed for the cost of the racing calendars.

Legal Issues: The main issue in this case was whether the silence can be considered an acceptance or not and whether the defendant has to pay for the plaintiffs.

Judgement: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and held the defendants accountable for their actions. However, the defendant had the opportunity to reject the claim, but instead of doing so, the defendant accepted it, which can be counted as an offer by conduct.

Fairose Alam

ID: 223011101

# data[].attributes.body
Shovona Ahsan

ID: 223011176

Facts: The plaintiffs published the Racing Calendar, a periodical with horse racing information. They sent it to the defendant, a horse dealer, without his order. The defendant knew the periodical was not a gift, but he kept it and used it for his business. The plaintiffs demanded payment for the periodical.

Legal Issues: The main issue was whether the silence can be considered as an acceptance or not and whether the defendant has to pay the plaintiffs.

Judgement: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The court held that the defendant had the opportunity to reject the calenders but instead he stared making use of them and this can be count as acceptance as he had accepted the offer by conduct.

# data[].attributes.body
Case Facts:

In the case of Weatherby v Banham (1832), the plaintiff, Weatherby, was the owner of a racehorse named "Marmion," who was entered to race in a sweepstakes. Banham, the defendant, was the owner of another horse named "Emancipation," who was also entered in the same sweepstakes. However, Banham withdrew his horse before the race. Weatherby sued Banham for the entrance fee, arguing that Banham's withdrawal had deprived him of the chance to win the sweepstakes.

Legal Issues:

Whether Banham's withdrawal from the sweepstakes obligated him to pay the entrance fee to Weatherby.

Whether there was a valid contractual obligation between Weatherby and Banham regarding the entrance fee.

Judgment:

The court held in favor of Weatherby, the plaintiff. The withdrawal of Banham's horse from the sweepstakes did not release him from the obligation to pay the entrance fee. The court found that by entering the sweepstakes, Banham had entered into a binding contract with Weatherby, irrespective of the subsequent withdrawal of his horse. As such, Banham was ordered to pay the entrance fee to Weatherby.

Name : Tasnuva Kabir

ID : 223011210

# data[].attributes.body
Case facts: The plaintiffs were the publishers of the Racing Calendar, a periodical containing information about horse races. They had supplied a copy of the calendar to one Mr.Weatherby, who was a subscriber, for several years. After Mr.Weatherby’s death, the plaintiffs continued to send the calendar to his address, where the defendant, his executor, resided. The defendant did not return or object to the calendar, but he also did not pay for it. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for the price of the calendar, claiming that he had accepted it by his silence and acquiescence.

Case issues: The main issue was whether the defendant had freely accepted the benefit of the calendar, knowing that the plaintiffs expected payment, and thus was liable to pay for it. The plaintiffs relied on the principle of free acceptance, which states that if the defendant had an opportunity to reject the benefit and failed to do so, he is considered to have accepted it. The defendant argued that he had not requested or valued the calendar, and that he had no obligation to return or refuse it.

Case judgement: The court ruled in favour of the defendant, holding that he was not liable to pay for the calendar. The court found that the defendant had not freely accepted the benefit, as he had not seen or read the calendar, and had no use for it. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the defendant had acquiesced in the provision of the benefit by not objecting to it, as there was no evidence that he knew that the plaintiffs expected payment. The court distinguished this case from other cases where the defendant had stood by while the plaintiff was providing the benefit, or had adopted or enjoyed the benefit. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not proved that the defendant had been enriched at their expense.

KAZI OMAR NASIF

223011079

# data[].attributes.body
Sadman Rafee

ID:223011116

Facts: Horse racing information was published in the Racing Calendar, a magazine that was issued by the plaintiffs. Without his permission, they forwarded it to the defendant, a horse broker. Despite knowing that the magazine was not a gift, the defendant kept it and exploited it for his company's purposes. Payment for the periodical was claimed by the plaintiffs.

Legal issues: Whether the defendant was required to pay for the periodical even though he neither requested nor agreed to pay for it was the primary legal issue. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant indicated acceptance and a commitment to pay through their actions. The defendant said that neither he nor the periodical's benefits were given their approval.

Judgement: The plaintiffs were granted relief the court. The defendant, the court reasoned, had an opportunity.

# data[].attributes.body
Case Fact

The plaintiffs, publisher of the racing calender, used to supply a copy of the racing calender for some years to Mr Westbrook. Upon the death of Mr Westbrook, the defendant succeeded to his property and went on to live at his house. The plaintiffs being unaware of the fact continued to supply to him. The defendenat had the opportunity to return the calenders but instead he started to use them. The plaintiff subsequently sued the defendant to recover the price of the calendars.

Legal Issue

The main issue was whether the silence can be considered as an acceptance or not and whether the defendant has to pay the plaintiffs.

Judgement

The court held that the defendant had the opportunity to reject the calenders but instead he started making use of them and this can be count as acceptance as he had accepted the offer by conduct. Lord Tenterden CJ held that the defendant was clearly liable and was bound to pay the plaintiffs.

Ramisha Bint Azad

223011188

# data[].attributes.body
Facts:A periodical with horse racing information was published by the plaintiffs' Racing Calendar.They sent it to the defendant, who is a horse dealer, without his permission.Despite knowing that the periodical was not a gift, the defendant kept it and utilized it for his business.Payment for the periodical was demanded by the plaintiffs.

Legal issues:The legal concern was whether the defendant was obligated to pay for the periodical, even though he did not ask for it or consent to pay for it.According to the plaintiffs, the defendant's conduct implied acceptance and a commitment to pay.The defendant claimed that he did not consent or benefit from the periodical.

Judgment:The court sided with the plaintiffs in their case.According to the court's reasoning, the defendant had a choice to reject the periodical, but instead chose to keep it and use it.It was evident that he intended to pay for the benefit.The periodical provided valuable information for the defendant's trade, as confirmed by the court.The court rejected the defendant's claim that he didn't value the periodical because it wasn't relevant to his duty.According to the court's order, the defendant was obligated to pay £13 6s 8d, which was the cost of the periodical.

MD.Imran Hossain Emon

ID:223011001

# data[].attributes.body
Case Facts: The plaintiff Weatherby in Weatherby v. Banham had supplied oats to the defendant Banham, a horse dealer, with the idea that Banham would feed the oats to his horses. Weatherby sued Banham for the value of the oats when Banham later sold some of them to a third party without getting his approval.

Legal Issues: In Weatherby v. Banham, the primary legal issue was whether Banham was allowed to sell the oats that Weatherby had given him without getting Weatherby's permission. This entailed issues with property rights and the existence of a binding contract between the two parties.

Decision: According to the decision, Banham was not permitted to sell the oats to a third party without Weatherby's consent

Md. Irfan Tahsin

ID: 222011036

# data[].attributes.body
Facts: Horse racing information was published in the Racing Calendar, a magazine that was issued by the plaintiffs. Without his permission, they forwarded it to the defendant, a horse broker. Despite knowing that the magazine was not a gift, the defendant kept it and exploited it for his company's purposes. Payment for the periodical was claimed by the plaintiffs.

Legal issues: Whether the defendant was required to pay for the periodical even though he neither requested nor agreed to pay for it was the primary legal issue. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant indicated acceptance and a commitment to pay through their actions. The defendant said that neither he nor the periodical's benefits were given their approval.

Judgement: The plaintiffs were granted relief by the court. The defendant, the court reasoned, had an opportunity.

# data[].attributes.body
Case Facts: In Weatherby v. Banham, the plaintiff Weatherby had delivered oats to the defendant Banham, a horse dealer, with the intention that the oats would be fed to Banham's horses. However, Banham later sold some of the oats to a third party without Weatherby's consent, and Weatherby sued Banham for the oats' value.

Legal Issues: The main legal question in Weatherby v. Banham concerned whether Banham had the right to sell the oats that Weatherby had delivered to him without Weatherby's consent; this involved questions of property rights and whether or not there was a valid contract between the parties.

Judgment: In the judgment, the court held that Banham did not have the right to sell the oats to a third party without Weatherby's consent.

Name:Mst.Ame

Id:223011172

# data[].attributes.body
Facts: The plaintiffs published the Racing Calendar, a periodical with horse racing information. They sent it to the defendant, a horse dealer, without his order. The defendant knew the periodical was not a gift, but he kept it and used it for his business. The plaintiffs demanded payment for the periodical.

Legal issues: The main legal issue was whether the defendant had to pay for the periodical, even though he did not request it or agree to pay for it. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant’s behavior implied acceptance and promise to pay. The defendant claimed that he did not consent or benefit from the periodical.

Judgment: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The court reasoned that the defendant had a chance to reject the periodical, but he chose to retain and utilize it. This showed that he intended to pay for the benefit. The court also found that the defendant gained from the periodical, as it had valuable information for his trade. The court dismissed the defendant’s argument that he did not value the periodical, as it was irrelevant to his obligation. The court ordered the defendant to pay £13 6s 8d, which was the price of the periodical.

Riham Jannat

ID - 223011083