[ToValueFunfetti]

The requirements for making a contract are minimal. If your friend says "I bet you a hundred dollars that you can't run over there and back in less than a minute" and you say nothing in response but start running, you've entered into a binding contract. Your other points still stand, but an email that makes an offer and makes it clear that you accept by responding "Resign" and a response to that email that says "Resign" is definitely sufficient to be subject to contract law.

[toast0]

Binding on illegal contracts is tricky. If I offer X for murder, and you do the murder and I don't pay you; you can't seek recompense in the courts.

If the government's offer is illegal, those who accepted it and performed their part of the contract may not be able to force the government to perform its part.

[mikeyouse]

Your example of a binding contract isn’t a binding contract since there’s no consideration to the person who made the bet.

[ToValueFunfetti]

I think I agree, on reflection, that it is not a binding contract. But (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think it's a matter of consideration- in a wager, each party stands to gain the agreed upon amount depending on the outcome, which should qualify for that criteria AFAICT. I think the informality of a between-friends bet and gambling laws are what do the example in.

[mikeyouse]

Yeah that clarification helps and I agree there - there's a bunch of exceptions of 'joking bets' etc. I first read the offer as "I'll give you $100 if you can run there and back in under a minute" rather than each party being able to win the $100 which would indeed satisfy the consideration requirement.

[staticman2]

This is confidently wrong. The requirements for contracting with the federal government are nothing like the requirements between private citizens. There are specific statutory procedures which must be followed for an enforceable government contract, including but not limited to congressional funding.

[ToValueFunfetti]

Maybe I should have quoted the part I was disagreeing with, but I thought I had made it clear.

>And you think that an offer accepted by sending an email with "Resign" in the subject line is subject to these protections?

I'm saying that if you say "accept this agreement by sending 'Resign' in the subject line" and someone does so, that's a legally valid offer and acceptance of a contract. Are standards higher for the federal government on this?

[staticman2]

Yes there are higher standards.

Here's a quick blurb from a law firm blog, notice the "acts at its peril" language which is not the standard for private citizens contracting together:

"Authority Issues. Contract awards and contract modifications may be made on behalf of the government only by duly appointed contracting officers acting within the limits of both available funding and their delegated authority. This public policy principle of limited authority is strongly supported in the law. To the extent that a company incurs costs based upon the directions or promises of government persons without this essential authority, the company does so at its financial risk. Moreover, the contractor has the responsibility to know the scope of authority of the government official with whom it deals, and acts at its peril."

https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/publications/the-risks-a...