Under the Doctrine of Acquiescence as well as the Maxim in Law which states that “silence shows consent” 6 Barb. [N.Y.] 2B, 35. Qui non negat, fatetur and “He who does not deny, agrees,” (Trayner, Maxim 503), the Appellee’s silence constituted their agreement with the Appellants’ arbitration proposal terms and conditions under the legal Doctrine of Tacit Procuration.
The common law doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence is applied when one party gives legal notice to a second party of a fact or claim, and the second party fails to challenge or refute that claim within a reasonable time. The second party is said to have acquiesced to the claim, and is estopped from later challenging it, or making a counterclaim. The doctrine is similar to, and often applied with, estoppel by laches
This occurred in the second Georgia v. South Carolina [1] case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990, when it was ruled that Georgia could no longer make any claim to an island in the Savannah River, despite the 1787 Treaty of Beaufort's assignment to the contrary. The court said that the state had knowingly allowed South Carolina to join the island as a peninsula to its own coast by dumping sand from dredging, and to then levy property taxes on it for decades. Georgia thereby lost the island-turned-peninsula by its own acquiescence, even though the treaty had given it all of the islands in the river (see adverse possession
The doctrine of acquiescence although typically not found in law, is found a lot in precedent. As seen by this search of US Supreme Court rulings the doctrine of acquiescence has been mentioned over a thousand times.
Silence is acquiescence(aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence) is a related doctrine that can mean, and have the legal effect, that when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortuous act, where one’s silence may mean that one accepts or permits such acts without protest or claim thereby loses rights to a claim of any loss or damage.[2]- [1] Georgia v. South Carolina - 497 U.S. 376 (1990)
- [2]U.S. Supreme Court Central Pacific Railway Co. v. Alameda County, 284 U.S. 463 (1932)
United States Supreme Court rulings that mention acquiescence
Legal dictionary on acquiescence
The information here is presented by:
http://educationcenter2000.comOur mission is to educate consumers about secured and unsecured credit and options available to them.
We believe that if you don't know your rights, you don’t know your options.
Join Us Today, We have been successfully helping consumers with Debt Resolution and Credit Repair more than 10 years.