Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Judicial History
On April 12, 1987, the courts granted judgment for defendants, United States Mint, on their
motion to dismiss in it entirety. The plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of
Facts
In July 1985 Congress passed the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Commemorative Coin Act.,
which instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a stated number of coins, provided
marketing procedures, procedures on coin disbursement and surcharges and to take actions to
Mary and Anthony Mesaros stated on November 23, 1985, Mary Mesaros sent the Mint an order
for Statue of Liberty Coins. The order form reflected the payment of $1675.00 which was to be
On December 30, 1985, Anthony Mesaros placed an additional order for eighteen gold coins to
the Mint using nine separate checks. These orders were filled. On February 19, 1996, the
Mesaros received a letter from the Mint stating the Mint had tried but were unable to process the
order made in November using a credit card. The letter directed The Mesaros to contact their
financial institution regarding the rejection of their order. It also included a new form reflecting
coins currently available which did not include the five dollar gold coins. Mearos contacted his
bank. The bank revealed that they were not responsible for the rejection of his credit card. On
May 23, 1986, the Mesaros files suit in the district court seeking damages on a breach of contract
1. Did the U.S. Mint breach an express contract with the Mesaros by not accepting the credit card
1a. Was the forms generated by the Mint to potential customers an advertisement rather
than a contract?
2. Mandamus - Is there a statutory duty upon the government to accept the order for coins?
Rule
sent to all persons interested in a particular trade or business, or a prospectus of general and
Contracts § 26.
2. Mandamus – The Constitution and Coin Act. Article I, Section 8 Clause 5 of the United States
Analysis
advertisement and solicitations were offers that bind the advertiser. If advertiser could
delivery of goods far exceeding the amount available. “This is particularly true in the
instant case where the gold coins were limited to 500,000 by the Act of Congress. The
courts further stated the Mesaros belief that the solicitation was an offer is “unreasonable
as a matter of law.
1a. The Mesaros relied on Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Storetarr. The courts found
the case was distinguishable from this case on the facts.”, it is of no help to the plaintiff. The
court stated the store advertisement “fur stole for sale for $1 on a first come, first serve basis
constituted an offer. The mint advertisement did not state coins will be served on a first-come,
first-served basis
2. Unless authorized by Congress, the Mint has no authority to mint coins. “An order from the
courts requiring the government to mint more coins to fill plaintiff’s order would force the Mint
Holding
1. The courts held that the Mint advertisement was not an offer of sale that could be
accepted by the plaintiffs creating a contract. There was no contract between the plaintiff
2. The court held there was not statutory duty on the Mint to enter into a contract with
plaintiff and others on a first-come, first-served basis or in any other particular sequence
or order.