Hobbs v. Massasoit Whip Co.

158 Mass. 194 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893

Facts

The plaintiff sent eelskins to the defendant, who kept them for several months until they were destroyed, without notifying the plaintiff of rejection. This transaction followed a prior course of dealing where the defendant had accepted and paid for similar eelskins from the plaintiff multiple times. The jury found the skins conformed to the defendant's requirements.

Issue

Can a jury find that a defendant's silence and retention of goods for an unreasonable time constitutes acceptance, particularly when there is a prior course of dealing between the parties?

Holding

Yes, the court held that the jury was warranted in finding for the plaintiff. The exceptions to the jury instruction were overruled, affirming that silence coupled with retention of goods can amount to acceptance under these circumstances.

Rule

When there is a prior course of dealing, silence coupled with the retention of goods for an unreasonable time can be found by a jury to constitute acceptance, especially if the sender was warranted in believing the goods would be accepted. Conduct that imports acceptance or assent is legally considered acceptance.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-03-02. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.