All that evil needs to win is for good men to do nothing, anything that we don't object to, we are agreeing to Tacit acquiescence: Tacit 1. understood without being openly expressed; implied: tacit approval. 2. silent; saying nothing: a tacit partner. 3. unvoiced or unspoken: a tacit prayer. Acquiescence Conduct recognizing the existence of a transaction and intended to permit the transaction to be carried into effect; a tacit agreement; consent inferred from silence. Example: Bill is mowing his lawn, Joe comes over and hands Bill $10, Bill don't say anything or ask "what is this for?" Bill pockets the money and smiles Joe then immediately starts to take Bills' lawnmower while they're both standing right there, Bill does not object he does not say anything or try to wrestle the mower away, Bill just goes inside to add $10 to his change jar Joe just bought a lawnmower for $10 because Bill did not stop Joe from taking his property or ask what the money is for and he also kept the money Without a word from either party Joe and Bill have a tacit agreement, a kind of contract that arises from the actions and inactions of the parties Bill, a week later decides it's time to mow the grass again, but he has no lawnmower because Joe borrowed it or something Bill sneaks over and steals the lawn mower from Joe and leaves $10 in place of the lawnmower Bill starts to mow his lawn and the police show up and arrest Bill for burglary, and trespassing In Bills' defense he says it's his lawnmower he has the receipt and Joe stole it or borrowed it from him first Joes' response is that he purchased it from Bill for $10, he did not try to mask his actions from Bill that he took the lawnmower while Bill was standing right there, Joe had Bills' tacit acquiescence to the transaction, no attempt was made to stop him from taking the mower after he offered payment Bill then claims he don't know why Joe was giving him money but he will accept money from anyone, he saw Joe taking his lawnmower and thought he would return it later Because time had passed and Bill never asked what the money was for, Joe did not need to express any terms of the private agreement but because of Bills inaction he appeared to accept Joe's offer to buy the lawnmower with no objection Bill had the chance to object, he could have refused payment or asked Joe to express his intent, Bill could have tried to stop Joe from walking away with his mower Does Bill have a leg to stand on? Is Joe a theif?
Bill's boned It is like amicable concent. while amicable supposes very little more than that the parties referred to are not disposed to quarrel.
A valid contract requires an offer, acceptance, and mutual consideration. To make that all work there has to be a "meeting of the minds". That means the parties have to agree to all of the essential terms of the agreement for it to be enforceable. Bill never sold his mower. Joe never bought it. There was no meeting of the minds. There are very few situations where you could enter into a contractual agreement based on your "tacit acquiescence" theory. However, bill is probably guilty of trespassing. Lol Now the real question is whether Joe can legally demand his money back. Probably not under the voluntary payment doctrine but you'd need to know more to tell for sure.
Joe's mind was made up, bill didn't object to watching him take the mower, as far as Joe is concerned there is meeting of the minds The mutual consideration was the $10 and the mower, both exchanged something Offer and acceptance was the $10, bill pocketed it, and Bill watched Joe walk away with the mower Just because the terms are not expressed doesn't mean there is no contract, maybe these guys can't speak, read, or write, they can only communicate with body language, commerce will continue See on the flip side bill attempted to return the $10 and take the mower back while Joe was not around in that situation there was no meeting of the minds, no wink, smile, or nod, bill has no contract for its return, even though the consideration was there, Joe was unable to accept the offer of $10 In a case if borrowing, the only consideration required is the promise to return it in the same or better condition, however one may leave a deposit in trust in case it comes back damaged, or is lost, the promise to return it is still there and the deposit acts like insurance