Goldings v. United States
98 Fed. Cl. 470
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Goldings sues for breach of implied-in-fact contract for a reward up to $2.5 million related to information in the anthrax investigation.
- Defendant moves to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6), arguing lack of mutual intent, unambiguous offer/acceptance, and lack of authority to bind the government.
- Plaintiff argues the reward announcement constitutes a unilateral contract and that his performance was in substantial compliance.
- Key issue is whether Postal Service Poster 296 created a binding contract or an illusory offer, given multiple versions and death of the suspect (Ivins) before arrest/conviction.
- Court compares Postal Service rewards to IRS rewards; finds Poster 296 is indefinite and not a fixed offer, lacking necessary certainty.
- Court ultimately holds no binding contract existed and dismissal is warranted for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Poster 296 creates a binding contract | Goldings argues it is a unilateral contract accepting by performance. | Government contends poster offers up to amounts, not definite contracts, requiring negotiations and authority. | No binding contract; poster is an illusory offer needing negotiation. |
| Mutual intent and authority to bind the government | There was mutual intent via performance. | No evidence of an authorized government official binding the U.S. to a specific reward amount. | No mutual intent or authority established. |
| Whether death of the offender qualifies under the poster's exception | Ivins’ death fits the exception as ‘killed while committing a crime’ or similar. | Suicide is not a listed postal offense and Ivins was not killed by a third party while committing a postal offense. | Exception not satisfied; death does not trigger six-month deadline. |
| Definiteness and certainty required for contract formation | Poster 296 and General Provisions provide clear terms and amounts. | Reward amounts are discretionary and indefinite; no fixed amount established. | Indefinite terms prevent contract formation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krug v. United States, 168 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Publication 733 does not create a contract; government accepts by paying a specific sum)
- Merrick v. United States, 846 F.2d 725 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (IRS rewards case where full award promised but not paid; distinguishes from USPS posters)
- Cambridge v. United States, 558 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Distinguishes reliance on Publication 733 without a fixed agreement; emphasizes need for a contract)
- Cornejo-Ortega v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 371 (Fed. Cl. 2004) (Poster 296's phrasing regards ‘up to’ rewards; illusory if not fixed by agreement)
- Drummond v. United States, 35 Ct.Cl. 356 (Ct. Cl. 1900) (Reward for apprehension must be definite; earlier case supports definite reward construct)
- Matthews v. United States, 173 U.S. 381 (U.S. 1899) (Reward for arrest/conviction of a crime; demonstrates need for certainty)
- Shuey v. United States, 92 U.S. 73 (U.S. 1875) (Revoked rewards and equity limits; not applicable to current poster terms)