Estate of Bogley v. United States (1975)
green
· 129 citation events
across 20 courts.
Showing the 39 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197620012026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Anderson v. United States (2003)
Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975) ("It is fundamental that in order to have a valid contract one party must make an offer that is a promise which is conditional upon receipt by the offeror of some act or promise from the offeree, and the offer must be accepted as to all its terms by the offeree."); see also Restatement § 22(1) ("The manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange ordinarily takes the form of an offer or proposal by …
"It is fundamental that in order to have a valid contract one party must make an offer that is a promise which is conditional upon receipt by the offeror of some act or promise from the offeree, and the offer must be accepted as to all its terms by the offeree."
green
Anderson v. United States (2003)
Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975) (“It is fundamental that in order to have a valid contract one party must make an offer that is a promise which is conditional upon receipt by the offeror of some act or promise from the offeree, and the offer must be accepted as to all its terms by the offeree.”); see also Restatement § 22(1) (“The manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange ordinarily takes the form of an offer or proposal by …
“It is fundamental that in order to have a valid contract one party must make an offer that is a promise which is conditional upon receipt by the offeror of some act or promise from the offeree, and the offer must be accepted as to all its terms by the offeree.”
green
La Van v. United States (2004)
Indeed, Anderson, which carefully evaluated this court's precedent on contract formation in the context of Winstar litigation, recognized that the "something more" requires, in succinct terms, that "the offeree must give in return for the offeror's promise exactly the consideration which the offeror requests and the acceptance must be made absolutely and unqualifiedly." 344 F.3d at 1357 (quoting Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975)).…
green
La Van v. United States (2004)
Indeed, Anderson, which carefully evaluated this court’s precedent on contract formation in the context of Winstar litigation, recognized that the “something more” requires, in succinct terms, that “the offeree must give in return for the offeror’s promise exactly the consideration which the offeror requests and the acceptance must be made absolutely and unqualifiedly.” 344 F.3d at 1357 (quoting Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975)).
green
Winstar Corp. v. United States (1992)
Bogley v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027 , 206 Ct.Cl. 695, 704-05 (1975) (“It is fundamental that in order to have a valid contract one party must make an offer that is a promise which is conditional upon receipt by the offeror of some act or promise from the offeree, and the offer must be accepted as to all its terms by the offeree.”); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 71(1) (1981) (“To constitute consideration, a performance or a return promise must be bargained for.”); 17…
“It is fundamental that in order to have a valid contract one party must make an offer that is a promise which is conditional upon receipt by the offeror of some act or promise from the offeree, and the offer must be accepted as to all its terms by the offeree.”
green
Turping v. United States (2017)
Id. (citing Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975) (“It is fundamental that in order to have a valid contract one party must make an offer that is a promise which is conditional upon receipt by the of-feror of some act or promise from the offer-ee, and the offer must be accepted as to all its terms by the offeree.”); see also Restatement § 22(1) (“The manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange ordinarily takes the form of an offer o…
“It is fundamental that in order to have a valid contract one party must make an offer that is a promise which is conditional upon receipt by the of-feror of some act or promise from the offer-ee, and the offer must be accepted as to all its terms by the offeree.”
green
Ingham Regional Medical Center v. United States (2016)
Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1052 , 123 S.Ct. 2129 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2003)); see also Estate of Bogley v. United States, 514 F.2d at 1032 (“An expression of intention is not an offer.”).
“An expression of intention is not an offer.”
green
Angela Lea v. Department of Defense (2026)
Bogley’s Estate 7 v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1033 (Ct. Cl. 1975). 3 Thus, the question before us is whether the agency’s promise under the settlement agreement related to accommodating the appellant’s medical condition constituted a commitment to do what the law already required.
green
Crestview Clinical Laboratory, LLC v. United States (2026)
This is because the “manifest assent to be bound” necessary to create a contract means “[t]he offeree must give in return for the offeror’s promise exactly the consideration which the offeror requests and the acceptance must be made absolutely and unqualifiedly.” Anderson, 344 F.3d at 1357 (quoting Est. of Bogley v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (Ct. Cl. 1975)).
green
Laborant, LLC v. United States (2026)
Put another way, “a plaintiff must show, by objective evidence, the existence of an offer and a reciprocal acceptance.” Anderson, 344 F.3d at 1353 (citing Est. of Bogely v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (Ct. Cl. 1975)).
green
Shaheed v. United States (2025)
Consideration must be legally “sufficient and valuable[,] . . . which has been defined by ‘([a]) detriment incurred by the promisee, or a benefit received by the promisor at the request of the promisor.’” Estate of Bogley v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (Ct. Cl. 1975) (citing 1 Williston, Contracts 102 (1957)).
citing 1 Williston, Contracts 102 (1957)
green
D-STAR Engineering Corp. (2025)
The former employee’s clean-up work constituted past consideration and could not serve as the basis for a new contractual obligation based on the promise to pay $10,000 after-the- fact. “[P]ast consideration is no consideration.” Bogley’s Estate v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1033 (Ct. Cl. 1975); Gen.
green
Faerber v. United States (2021)
Cir. 2003) (citing Est. of Bogley v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (Ct. Cl. 1975) (“It is fundamental that in order to have a valid contract . . . the offer must be accepted as to all its terms by the offeree.”)).
“It is fundamental that in order to have a valid contract . . . the offer must be accepted as to all its terms by the offeree.”
George, 898 P.2d 1372, 1376 (Utah 1995); Parry v. Walker, 657 P.2d 1000, 1002 (Colo.App.1982) (“It is true that a purported acceptance which adds qualifications or requires performance of conditions is not an acceptance.” (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 60)); 2 see also Bogley’s Estate v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975); United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.2d 343, 346 (8th Cir.1939).
green
Berg v. Obama (2008)
May 12, 2004) (finding that, under Pennsylvania law, “[a] broad and vague implied promise is not enough to satisfy” the promissory estoppel requirement that a promisor make a promise that he should reasonably expect will induce action or forbearance on the part of promisee) (citing C & K Petroleum Prods., Inc. v. Equibank, 839 F.2d 188, 192 (3d Cir.1988)), aff'd 155 Fed.Appx. 48 (3d Cir.2005); see also Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed.Cl. 249, 260 (2007) (finding that “the I…
green
PDR, Inc. v. United States (2007)
Consideration consists of a ‘“detriment incurred by the promisee, or a benefit received by the promisor at the request of the promisor.’ ” Ahrens v. United States, 62 Fed.Cl. 664, 672 (2004) (quoting Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695, 705 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1033 (1975)).
green
Jaynes v. United States (2007)
Consideration consists of a “ ‘detriment incurred by the promisee, or a benefit received by the promisor at the request of the promisor.’ ” Ahrens v. United States, 62 Fed.Cl. 664, 672 (2004) (quoting Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695, 705 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1033 (Ct.Cl.1975)).
green
Minehan v. United States (2007)
Group, Inc. v. United States, 67 Fed.Cl. 87, 104 (2005); Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975) (both stating that “[a]n expression of intention is not an offer”); see also Cutler-Hammer, Inc. v. United States, 194 Ct.Cl. 788 , 441 F.2d 1179, 1182 (1971) (stating that “[i]n general, the obligation of the Government, if it is to be held liable, must be stated in the form of an undertaking, not as a mere prediction or statement of opinio…
both stating that “[a]n expression of intention is not an offer”
green
Home Savings of America, F.S.B. v. United States (2006)
Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804 , 812-13 (6th Cir.1999); United Fruit Co. v. United States, 186 F.2d 890, 895-96 (1st Cir.1951); 4 Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975), do not hold that each promise in a contract must be bargained for with separate, distinct, and explicit consideration. 5 Instead, we find the applicable rule to be that one party can offer one consideration in exchange for one or many promises.
green
American Federal Bank, FSB v. United States (2004)
Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citing Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 22(1) (1981)). (a.) Offer. “[A]n offer is made by ‘the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it.’ ” Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 24; citing Ri…
green
Ahrens v. United States (2004)
Consideration Consideration is present if there is a “detriment incurred by the promisee, or a benefit received by the promisor at the request of the promisor.” Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1033 (1975).
green
American Federal Bank, FSB v. United States (2003)
Anderson, 344 F.3d at 1353 (citing Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975); Restatement Contracts § 22(1)). (a.) Offer. “[A]n offer is made by ‘the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person in under standing that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it.’ ” Anderson, 344 F.3d at 1353 (quoting Restatement Contracts § 24; citing Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 4:…
green
Woll v. United States (1999)
“A contract is a promise, or set of promises, for breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty.” Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695, 704 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975) (quoting 1 Williston, Contracts § 1 (3d ed.1957)) (holding that contract must have detriment incurred by offeree or benefit received by offeror at request of offeror).
quoting 1 Williston, Contracts § 1 (3d ed.1957)
green
Gianetti v. Norwalk Hospital (1989)
Jur. 2d, Contracts § 119; Restatement, Contracts § 76”); Estate of Bogley v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027,1033 (Ct. Cl. 1975); Borbely v. Nationwide Mutual Ins.
green
Cohen v. Amerifirst Bank (1989)
Inc. v. Olympia Brewing Co., 440 F.2d 21 (9th Cir.1971); Bogley v. U.S., 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975)." * * * * * * "...
green
Alaska v. United States (1988)
Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695, 704-705 (1975).
green
Metzger, Shadyac & Schwarz v. United States (1987)
Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695, 704 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975); City of Klawock v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 580, 584 (1983), aff'd, 732 F.2d 168 (Fed.Cir.1984).
green
Delco Electronics Corp. v. United States (1987)
Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695, 704-05 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975); City of Klawock v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 580, 584 (1983), aff'd, 732 F.2d 168 (Fed.Cir.1984).
green
Reardon v. DeGregorio (In Re Reardon) (1981)
Estate of Bogley v. U. S., 514 F.2d 1027, 1040 (U.S. Court of Claims, 1975).
green
Day's Stores, Inc. v. Hopkins (1978)
Such a representation is not unlike Estate of Bogley v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (Ct.Claims 1975), where a board of directors, by resolution, authorized the corporation to make lump sum payments to specific employees.
green
Estate of Edward P. Bender, Martha A. Bender v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Appeal of Estate of Edward … (1987)
See also Estate of Bogley v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1037 (Ct.Cl.1975) (mere expectancy arising from an expression of corporate intent not includible as an asset of the gross estate because not a property right). 24 Under 26 U.S.C.
green
Estate of Bender v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1987)
See also Estate of Bogley v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1037 (Ct.Cl.1975) (mere expectancy arising from an expression of corporate intent not includible as an asset of the gross estate because not a property right).
green
Lee v. United States (2019)
See Bogley’s Estate, 514 F.2d at 1032 .
green
Steinberg v. United States (2009)
See Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (1975); Restatement § 22(1) (“The manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange ordinarily takes the form of an offer or proposal by one party followed by an acceptance by the other party or parties.”).
green
Hauschild v. United States (2002)
Kehias later did inform plaintiff that his promotion was “just a papeiwork exercise at this point,” id. at 2, “[fjederal officials who by act or word generate expectations in the persons they employ, and then disappoint them, do not ipso facto create a contract liability running from the Federal Government to the employee.” Shaw v. United States, 226 Ct.Cl. 240, 251 , 640 F.2d 1254, 1260 (1981); see also, Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695, 705 , 514 F.2d 1027…
citing eases to effect that expressions of intent not offers to contract
Generally, “[consideration is sufficient if there is any benefit to the promisor or any detriment to the promisee.” Nebco & Assocs. v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 635, 645 (1991) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 71, 332(5)); see also Estate of Bogley v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 695 , 514 F.2d 1027, 1033 (1975).
See Estate of Bogley v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1038 (Ct. Cl. 1975) (unilateral promise accepted by performance creates a unilateral contract because there was a meeting of the minds as to essential terms); Coleman v. Holecek, 542 F.2d 532, 535 (10th Cir. 1976) (unread signed form does not form basis of unilateral contract because there was no meeting of the minds); Watson v. Idaho Falls Consol.
unilateral promise accepted by performance creates a unilateral contract because there was a meeting of the minds as to essential terms
green
Haeffele v. Hercules Inc. (1987)
Hercules argues that even if the Flex-5 application was an offer plaintiff could have accepted, his pre-existing decision to retire could not support any resulting contract, as “past consideration is no consideration.” Murray v. Lichtman, 339 F.2d 749 , 752 n. 5 (D.C.Cir.1964); see Estate of Bogley v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1033 , 206 Ct.Cl. 695 (1975); Reece v. Reece, 239 Md. 649 , 212 A.2d 468, 474 (1965); Community Sports v. Denver Ringsby Rockets, 429 Pa. 565 , 24…
green
Nascent Group, J.V. v. United States (2012)
See First Commerce Corp. v. United States, 335 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“‘A reply to an offer which purports to accept it but is conditional on the offeror’s assent to terms additional to or different from those offered is not an acceptance but is a counter-offer.’ ”) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 59 (1979)); see also Bogley’s Estate v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1032 (Ct.Cl.1975) (“The offeree must give in return for the offeror’s promise exactly th…