D owed revenue, P, tax and NIC and tried to offer the tax collector a proposal to stagger the owed payments. He said he would have to check it with his superiors and tell the company if it was unacceptable. D heard nothing more. CA held that the silence of the tax collector, who did not himself have the authority to make such an agreement obviously meant there was no acceptance of the contract, while there was no consideration since delayed payment of a debt already owing is clearly not consideration. Gibson LJ said that Beer was analogous and would have to be disregarded if the Williams doctrine was extended to cases of debt. As for the argument that the Revenue had accepted the terms, this was wrong because the tax collector had no authority to make an acceptance, or even to bind his superiors to do so.
