MEMORANDUM OF LAW

TO: Johnnie A. Jones III, Esq.

FROM:, Geri Stewart
DATE:, October 10, 2010
SUBJECT: 12 Cal. App. 4th 415; 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 632; 1993 Cal. App. (1993)

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

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On motion of defendants.

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

ensure there would be no net cost on the government.

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

charged to Anthony Mesaros credit card.

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

or mandamus relief, forcing specific performance by the Mint.

Issue

1. Did the U.S. Mint breach an express contract with the Mesaros by not accepting the credit card

payment and failing to deliver the coins?

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

1. 17 C.J.S Contracts § 46 – “General a … circular couched in general language and proper to be

sent to all persons interested in a particular trade or business, or a prospectus of general and

descriptive nature, will be construed as an invitation to make an offer”; Restatement (Second)

Contracts § 26.

2. Mandamus – The Constitution and Coin Act. Article I, Section 8 Clause 5 of the United States

Constitution vests the power to mint coins exclusively in the Congress.

Analysis

1. The courts stated it is considered unreasonable for a person to believe that

advertisement and solicitations were offers that bind the advertiser. If advertiser could

be bound by the solicitation there would be an excessive number of contracts requiring

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

to act beyond the authority granted to it by § 102(a) of the Coin Act.”

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

and the government with regards to the coins.

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.