Everett Collection | Shutterstock

Decision of COFC dismissing breach of implied contract claim against the government is affirmed. The plaintiff sent an unsolicited letter to several state and federal officials stating he had accepted their offer—of a child support order—on condition that the government justify the existence of several federal agencies. Failure to satisfy this condition, the letter stated, would constitute a breach entitling the plaintiff to $3.5 million. When the government did not respond, the plaintiff sued for breach. The Federal Circuit held that the COFC properly dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An unsolicited letter, which is itself a counteroffer, is not a contract over which the COFC has jurisdiction.

Jameel Ibrahim sent a letter—entitled “Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/ Counter Offer to Acceptance of Offer”—to state officials in New Jersey, cabinet secretaries, and the U.S. Supreme Court. In the letter, Ibrahim notified the recipients that he had received their offer (which was a child support order from a New Jersey court) and accepted it subject to certain conditions—i.e., that the recipients justify the existence of various government agencies and practices. Failure to accept these conditions would result in default and an obligation to pay Ibrahim $3.5 million.

No one responded to Ibrahim’s letter. He then sued the government in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging the government breached and “implied by law” contract. The COFC dismissed the suit, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because Ibrahim had failed to plausibly allege that any contract existed with the government. Ibrahim appealed to the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the COFC. The COFC his limited subject matter jurisdiction over any claim founded upon an express or implied contract with the United States. Ibrahim’s complaint did not set forth any non-frivolous allegations from which the COFC could have plausibly concluded that Ibrahim had a contract with the government. Rather, it appeared Ibrahim had sent an unsolicited letter. The government never responded to that letter, so it was never accepted. There was no contract.

Even if Ibrahim’s letter were responsive to a previous communication, it constituted a conditional counteroffer, not a contract. Contract law does not permit one to send unsolicited letters to the government declaring that a failure to respond constitutes both formation and breach of a contract.

Jameel Ibrahim appeared pro se. The government is represented by Erin Murdock-Park, Joseph H. Hunt, Deborah Ann Bynum, and Robert E. Kirschman, Jr.