Striplin v. Kitts

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it would “follow[ ] Tree Farm” in “declin[ing] to extend HeyeF’ beyond the procurement context to a loan guarantee application
• holding that a regulation did -not constitute an offer inviting acceptance by performance because further action from the agency was necessary before the private party was entitled to the benefits provided in the regulation
• observing that although federal regulations which govern Farm Services Agency applications “cast [such applications] in more mandatory terms” they nonetheless “lack definiteness and a manifestation of the Government’s intent to enter into a contract upon receipt of an application”
• declining to extend Heyer to the plaintiffs loan guarantee application, and thus finding no implied-in-fact contract
• no contract formed “because the statute and the regulations cannot be characterized fairly as an offer”
• plaintiff cannot avoid Testan’s requirements “simply by characterizing the applicable statute or regulation as creating an implied contract”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).