It is worthwhile saying that silence is not understood as agreement. If you agree with an opinion or an idea, you are expected to say so.In general, the courts have held that the maxim "silence gives
consent" is not a part of the law of contract. Thus where an offer
was made by an oral request to renew certain insurance policies, the
request being a part of a conversation on other subjects, it was held
that the mere silence of the insurance agent was no acceptance, even
though the offeror so understood it.' There was no evidence that the
agent heard the request. The court said: "Instead of silence being
evidence of an agreement to do the thing requested, it is evidence,
either that the question was not heard, or that it was not intended to
comply with the request."2
It has been held that silence will not operate as the acceptance of an
offer even though the offeror expressly states that it shall so operate.
This rule is not at all objectionable in cases where the offeree remained
silent with no intent to accept and where the circumstances did not
make such conduct unreasonable. It may well be criticised, however,
when the offered took the offeror at his word, intentionally used the
specified mode of acceptance, and now tries to hold the offeror to a
contract.4