## Facts

- Congress authorized a limited-mintage Statue of Liberty–Ellis Island commemorative coin program through the Secretary of the Treasury, including pricing and surcharges.
- The United States Mint distributed promotional materials and order forms to the public; demand for the limited coins exceeded available supply.
- The order form language (e.g., “Please accept my order”) indicated purchasers were submitting orders for possible acceptance by the Mint.
- Mary and Anthony Mesaros submitted a large order in November 1985 using a credit card; although their bank approved the charge, the Mint (through a payment processor) did not successfully process the transaction.
- The Mesaroses later placed additional orders by check that the Mint processed and filled.
- By the time the credit-card processing issues were resolved, the statutory limit for certain coins (including $5 gold coins) had been reached, and the Mint declined further orders for those coins.
- The Mesaroses filed a putative class action alleging breach of contract and seeking, alternatively, mandamus to compel delivery of the coins associated with the credit-card order.
- The district court entered judgment for the government (rendering class certification moot), and the Federal Circuit affirmed after transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether the Mint’s promotional materials and order forms constituted a binding offer such that purchasers formed an enforceable contract by submitting an order and payment information.
2. Whether the Coin Act imposed a clear, nondiscretionary duty requiring the Mint to accept and fill valid orders (including on a first-come, first-served basis), supporting mandamus.
3. Whether plaintiffs could obtain money relief from the United States absent proof of a government-accepted contract or a money-mandating statutory duty.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed judgment for the government.
- The court held the Mint’s advertisements and order forms were solicitations inviting customers to make offers, not offers capable of acceptance by customers.
- Plaintiffs’ submitted order was an offer the Mint could accept or reject; because the Mint never accepted the credit-card order, no contract was formed.
- The Coin Act did not require the Mint to allocate coins on a first-come, first-served basis or otherwise impose a ministerial duty to fill all timely orders.
- Mandamus was unavailable because plaintiffs failed to show a clear, nondiscretionary legal duty to deliver the requested coins.

## Legal Principles

- Advertisements and catalog-type solicitations ordinarily invite offers rather than constitute offers, especially where language contemplates seller acceptance (e.g., “please accept my order”).
- A binding contract with the United States requires mutual assent, including acceptance by an authorized government actor; unaccepted purchase requests do not create contractual liability.
- Statutory authorization to run a limited-supply government program does not, without specific direction, create an enforceable duty to distribute goods by a particular allocation method.
- Mandamus lies only to compel a clear, ministerial duty; it cannot be used to control discretionary program administration.

## Conclusion

The court rejected contract and mandamus theories for undelivered commemorative coins, holding that the Mint’s promotional materials merely invited customer offers, the Mint never accepted the disputed credit-card order, and the governing statute created no clear duty to fill or prioritize orders.


Mesaros v. United States, 845 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1988)