Is based on mutual & verbal

Concluding a contract agreement/acceptance; however a contract can be concluded with several other ways. Silence does not necessarily express a specific view unless it is surrounded by certain conditions that may indicate that it expresses agreement/acceptance. There are some exceptions to the issue of silence when concluding a contract that silence would not necessarily mean agreement/acceptance. The essence of any legal behavior is free will which should be expressed clearly. All these exceptions are common and occur due to certain conditions which lead to silence.

The present study exemplifies some of the legislations; for instance, the German legislation, which is based on the principle of individual will, states that an endowment does not basically require forthright acceptance; silence, in such case, would do. The French legislation does not admit the individual will; it states that an Endowment should be clearly stated and silence cannot be judged for acceptance.

The Jordanian legislation admits the individual will and requires that endowment is to be handled like a contract, where acceptance is mandatory. The Anglo-Saxon legislation considers that donations and charities, to include endowments, do not represent any obligation on the part of the donor unless they entail an interest or a benefit.

Most legal systems deal with the financial claims issue alike; they all state that silence is acceptance when dealing with such cases; however there are certain exceptions, such as: a previous dealing between the two parties, if the acceptor practices ownership authorities over the object in question, if the contract results in bringing benefits to the offeror, commercial customs and practices.

The issue of silence as an indication of agreement/acceptance is still an argumentative one among all legal systems; however, there are some legislations that tend to consider silence, in certain cases, as agreement/acceptance.

Included in

Civil Law Commons