Does Silence Mean Agreement

More broadly, silence can mean the acceptance of concepts in relationships where silence has been interpreted as such in the past. In addition, affirmative acts (such as the implementation of the terms of the offer) can also be interpreted as acceptance, whether something has been communicated orally or not. Yes, yes. Your silence does not usually bind you to a performance contract. Services can be almost anything that is done by an individual or a group, for example. B lawn mower or moving a friend. However, this is a counter-offer that the original supplier can accept or refuse. When a bidder sends a late acceptance, but the acceptance is sent within a time frame that the applicant would have deemed appropriate, the courts have decided that good faith requires the original bidder to inform the original bidder that the acceptance has come too late. If the original supplier does not announce it, the supplier`s silence is considered to be the late acceptance of the supplier`s counter-offer. Here is an example of this point: 6. Immediately after this meeting, the decision, accompanied by interpretive statements and, if necessary, formal reservations, is issued by the Secretariat in a standard OSCE format and attached to the Journal of that meeting. The expiry date of the silence period is considered to be the date of the adoption of the decision. Acceptance generally cannot remain silent.

This rule dates back to England when a person wrote to a horse dealer that if he did not listen to the horse dealer, he would expect the horse to make his horse. The English courts did not believe that silence could show that there was mutual agreement and therefore decided that a contract would only exist if there was a positive agreement from the party receiving an offer. The Arch Hospitality Court recognized that there may be certain circumstances in which silence might indicate consent and found that the sale of real estate, pursuant to section 363, paragraph 2, was not the kind of circumstance that justified such a conclusion. In particular, the court found convincingly that Buffalo Realty was a mortgage borrower and that the Workers` Compensation Board had a registered judgment: furthermore, a debtor who wishes to freely and clearly sell assets should seek alternatives under Section 363, point f).