Master A leading contracts case holding that silence and retention of goods can constitute acceptance when prior dealings make it reasonable to treat silence as assent. with this comprehensive case brief.
Hobbs v. Massasoit Whip Co. is a foundational case on the doctrine of acceptance by silence and implied-in-fact contracts. It refines the oft-quoted maxim from Felthouse v. Bindley that silence is not acceptance by showing that commercial context and prior dealings can create a duty to speak. When such a duty exists, silence coupled with retention or use of goods may operate as assent, binding the offeree to pay.
For law students, the case illustrates how contract formation is not confined to formal offers and explicit acceptances; instead, objective manifestations of assent—especially within established business relationships—can complete the bargain. Hobbs also anticipates core ideas later codified in the Uniform Commercial Code regarding acceptance of goods by failure to make a timely rejection, making it a durable teaching tool across common-law and UCC frameworks.
158 Mass. 194, 33 N.E. 495 (Mass. 1893)
The plaintiff, Hobbs, was a supplier of eel skins used in manufacturing whips. Over a period of time, Hobbs had shipped the defendant, Massasoit Whip Co., eel skins of a particular kind and size that the company used and had on previous occasions accepted and paid for. Without a new express order, Hobbs again sent a shipment of similar eel skins to the defendant's premises. The defendant kept the skins for an extended period without notifying Hobbs of rejection or returning them. While in the defendant's possession, the skins were eventually destroyed (reportedly by vermin). Hobbs demanded payment for the skins, contending that the defendant's retention of the goods constituted acceptance. The defendant refused, arguing there was no contract because it had not ordered the skins and had never expressly accepted them. A jury found for Hobbs, and the defendant sought review.
Can an offeree's silence and retention of goods, in light of prior course of dealing and the surrounding commercial context, constitute acceptance sufficient to create an implied-in-fact contract obligating payment for the goods?
Although silence ordinarily does not constitute acceptance, acceptance may be implied from silence and inaction where, because of prior dealings, trade usage, or other circumstances, the offeree has reason to know that the offeror expects a reply and it is reasonable to treat silence as assent. When a party receives goods and retains them for an unreasonable time without seasonable rejection, especially in a context where prior dealings suggest that non-objection signifies assent, the law may treat that conduct as acceptance, creating an obligation to pay for the goods.
Yes. Given the parties' prior dealings and the defendant's retention of the eel skins without timely rejection, the jury could find that the defendant accepted the goods by silence and was liable to pay for them.
The court emphasized the objective nature of assent and the significance of commercial context. The parties had a history in which the plaintiff sent eel skins of a certain grade and the defendant accepted and paid for them. In that setting, the defendant's failure to promptly reject or return the shipment, combined with its dominion over the goods for an extended period, was conduct from which acceptance could reasonably be inferred. The defendant, knowing that Hobbs had previously supplied and been paid for similar skins, had reason to understand that Hobbs would treat silence as assent and would expect payment absent a timely objection. The law does not require express verbal assent when conduct objectively indicates agreement; retention of goods without seasonable rejection can manifest acceptance, particularly where the nature of the goods and the course of dealing require a prompt response. The destruction of the goods while in the defendant's possession did not negate acceptance; rather, it underscored the defendant's control and the consequences of failing to speak within a reasonable time. Unlike cases where silence alone would be insufficient, here prior dealings and the offeree's conduct supplied the requisite manifestation of assent. Thus, it was proper to allow the jury to find an implied-in-fact contract and hold the defendant liable for the value of the skins.
Hobbs softens the rigid "silence is not acceptance" principle by carving out an important, commercially sensible exception grounded in prior dealings and objective manifestations of assent. It foreshadows the UCC's acceptance framework (e.g., UCC §§ 2-606, 2-607, and course-of-dealing concepts in § 1-303), teaching that buyers who retain goods without timely rejection may be deemed to accept them. For students, Hobbs is a staple for analyzing implied-in-fact contracts, the role of trade practice and course of dealing, and the circumstances under which silence creates a duty to pay.
Felthouse v. Bindley stands for the general rule that silence is not acceptance. Hobbs recognizes an exception: where prior dealings or the commercial context make it reasonable for the offeror to expect a response and for the offeree's silence to indicate assent, silence coupled with retention of goods can constitute acceptance. In short, Felthouse states the baseline; Hobbs supplies the commercially grounded exception.
Generally no. Hobbs requires more than silence—it requires circumstances (such as prior course of dealing, trade usage, or the offeree's retention and control of the goods for an unreasonable time) that make it reasonable to treat silence as assent. Absent these contextual factors, silence alone is not acceptance.
Course of dealing was pivotal. Hobbs had previously shipped similar eel skins that the defendant accepted and paid for, creating a reasonable expectation that if the defendant did not want the skins, it would promptly reject or return them. That history supplied the duty to speak and made the defendant's silence legally significant.
Under UCC § 2-606(1)(b), a buyer accepts goods by failing to make an effective rejection after a reasonable opportunity to inspect. UCC § 2-607(1) then obligates the buyer to pay for accepted goods. Course of dealing and usage of trade under UCC § 1-303 would further support the inference that silence and retention constituted acceptance in a context like Hobbs.
It does not negate acceptance; if acceptance has occurred (here, by retention without timely rejection), the risk of loss and obligation to pay generally fall on the buyer, subject to applicable doctrines. In Hobbs, the destruction of the eel skins while in the defendant's control reinforced that the defendant had exercised dominion over the goods and failed to act within a reasonable time.
Hobbs v. Massasoit Whip Co. establishes that contractual assent can be inferred from silence and inaction when the context—especially prior dealings—makes it reasonable to treat silence as assent. By retaining goods without timely rejection, the offeree manifests acceptance, creating an enforceable obligation to pay.
The case remains a cornerstone in teaching objective assent, implied-in-fact contracts, and the commercial norms later reflected in the UCC. It reminds practitioners and students that contract law evaluates conduct in context: when business relationships create a duty to speak, silence speaks volumes.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →