The parties agree to remain silent on the existing legislation. Although the parties negotiated for several months, the excise payment agreements remained silent. Pernod was legally required to pay excise duty to the government for manufactured goods such as bottled wine delivered to Lion. With respect to the High Court, the question arose as to whether Lion had an obligation to reimburse Pernod for the excise duty. The total tariff on bottled wine under the distribution contract was more than $10 million. Hughes sued Lyall for $300,000 in damages for the costs of alternative food and the loss of value of the cows. Both Hughes and Lyall agreed that the duration of their agreement was implied that Lyall would demonstrate the diligence and skill expected of a reasonably competent ensiling contractor for harvesting and processing the crop. However, as the Court of Appeal found, „the agreement was over.” Hughes stated that Lyall had not provided the services competently and had failed to ensure that the ensiling had sufficient nutritional value. Lyall stated that it was the overmaturity of the crop that meant that it could not be harvested with the „complete harvesting process” and that it was not his responsibility to decide when to harvest or to ensure that the solage had some nutritional value.
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. So if an oral agreement – perhaps interrupted by a simple handshake – can constitute a legally binding contract, what about silence after an offer? We examine the legal nuances of this issue below. In modern negotiations, there are silent agreements where, in negotiations where objections are possible, there is no explicit objection or consent. Tacit agreements do not necessarily have their full weight in determining rights for class arbitration proceedings. [Updated June 13, 2017: On suggestion in this more recent post, I had a change of attitude. I think it should be a language of explanation: the parties recognize that this agreement does not concern the law governing disputes arising from that agreement or the purpose of that agreement. What for? Because it is not really appropriate to say as a basic principle of the treaty that the treaty does not cover.
But maybe I`m pedantic. And in any case, there is no possibility of confusion.] This case is a reminder to cover the obligations of the other party in a written contract, if you want to make sure that a job is performed in a certain way and according to a certain standard, and you do not want the law to involve industrial standards in your agreement.