Plaintiff's Tucker Act claim against the government for breach of contract
Chattler v. U.S., 10-1066, concerned a plaintiff's action against the United States and Department of State asserting a Little Tucker Act claim under 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a)(2) for breach of contract, claiming provision 5(b) of the passport application was an offer, which she accepted by paying the $60 expedite fee, and that the government breached the resulting contract by failing to process her passport within three days.
Chattler v. U.S., 10-1066, concerned a plaintiff's action against the United States and Department of State asserting a Little Tucker Act claim under 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a)(2) for breach of contract, claiming provision 5(b) of the passport application was an offer, which she accepted by paying the $60 expedite fee, and that the government breached the resulting contract by failing to process her passport within three days.
In affirming the judgment of the district court, the court held that the
district court properly granted government's summary judgment on
plaintiff's regulatory claim as the phrase, "will be refunded" in
section 51.63(c) of the Code of Federal Regulations Title 23 does not
imply "will be refunded without further action by the applicant," and
does not require the government to issue an automatic refund without a
request by the applicant. The court also held that the government did
not manifest an intent to be bound in contract by provision 5(b) of the
passport application, and no contract was formed by the timing provision
in the passport application or by the statements on the Department's
website.
Related Link:
Related Link:
- Read the Federal Circuit's Full Decision in Chattler v. U.S., 10-1066
ShareThis
