Mesaros v. United States
845 F.2d 1576 · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
Facts
In July 1985, Congress passed an Act authorizing the U.S. Mint to sell commemorative Statue of Liberty coins to fund restoration. In late 1985, the Mint mailed advertising materials to potential customers, including Mary and Anthony Mesaros, offering a "Pre-Issue Discount" for orders placed by December 31, 1985. The order form stated, "YES, Please accept my order..." and "I have read, understand and agree to the above." Mary Mesaros placed an order using Anthony's credit card in November 1985, and Anthony placed additional orders by check in December 1985. Demand for the limited 500,000 gold coins far exceeded supply. The Mint filled cash orders promptly, but credit card orders required a lengthy verification process by Mellon Bank. The Mesaroses' credit card order was rejected in February 1986 because all gold coins had sold out before it could be verified, despite their bank having authorized the charge. The coins paid by check were received.
Procedural history
The Mesaroses filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, seeking damages for breach of contract or mandamus. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and the case was subsequently transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Issue
Did the U.S. Mint's advertising materials constitute an offer that, upon acceptance by the Mesaroses, created a binding contract for the sale of commemorative coins? Alternatively, did the Coin Act create a statutory duty for the Mint to accept the Mesaroses' order, entitling them to mandamus relief?
Holding
The court held that the Mint's advertising materials were not an offer, and thus no contract was formed between the Mesaroses and the government. The court also held that the Coin Act did not impose a statutory duty on the Mint to accept orders in any particular sequence, and therefore mandamus relief was not available.
Rule
Advertisements and solicitations for offers are generally considered invitations to deal, not offers that create a power of acceptance. Whether an offer has been made depends on the objective reasonableness of the alleged offeree's belief that the advertisement was intended as an offer, and it is generally unreasonable to believe advertisements are binding offers, especially for limited goods. The language "YES, Please accept my order..." on the form indicated the customer's submission was an offer to the Mint, subject to the Mint's acceptance. Mandamus relief requires a clear statutory duty owed specifically to the plaintiffs, which was not present here as the Coin Act granted the Secretary broad discretion and did not mandate a first-come, first-served order fulfillment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.