Mesaros v. United States

845 F.2d 1576 (1988)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Congress passed an act to allow for the minting of commemorative coins to help provide funds for the Statue of Liberty. The Act allowed the Secretary of the Treasury to accept prepaid orders for the coins at a reasonable discount to reflect the prepayment. The Act also allowed for bulk sales at a discount. The Mint then mailed advertising materials to persons whose names were included on a list of previous customers and coin collectors. These ads encouraged them to forward early payment for the coins. They were told that if they got their reservation in by December 31, 1985, they would enjoy a pre-issue discount of up to 16%. Payment could be made by check, money order, or credit card. The Mint had never dealt with credit card sales before, and this turned into an impossible ordeal. The order form had a place for the customer’s signature with a statement that told them all sales were final and not subject to a refund and that if the order were received by December 31, 1985, they would get the discount. Demand for the coins exceeded their expectations. The 500,000 $5 coins authorized by the Act went very fast, and the last order that was filled was between December 31, 1985, and January 6, 1986. There were a lot of unhappy customers, and their anger became more pronounced when the coins increased 200% in value in the first few months of 1986. Mesaros (P) forwarded her order on November 26, 1985, with her credit card information for a total sum of $1,675. P’s husband also forwarded another order for 18 more coins on December 30, 1985, with payment of 9 separate checks. On February 18, 1986, they were informed that the Mint was unable to process their credit card order on November 26, 1985. P was directed to contact their financial institution for details regarding this rejection. A new order form was given with the option to order other coins that had not yet sold out. A quick investigation showed that their bank was not at fault in the transaction. In May 1986, P got the 18 coins ordered by check. P then filed suit seeking damages for breach of contract. They claimed jurisdiction under the Tucker Act (28 USC 1346). P contends that there was an offer and acceptance and a binding contract based on the materials that were mailed to them. D filed a motion to dismiss the suit or in the alternative summary judgment. The court granted this motion. P appealed.