Leonard v pepsico

The Court now turns to the line of cases upon which plaintiff rests much of his argument.

Leonard v pepsico

Such an inquiry is commonly performed by courts on a motion for summary judgment. Holding: Page First, the commercial was merely an advertisement, not a[n].

What happened to john leonard pepsi

See Las Vegas Hacienda v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Plaintiff's Demands for Additional Discovery In his Memorandum of Law, and in letters to the Court, plaintiff argues that additional discovery is necessary on the issues of whether and how defendant reacted to plaintiff's "acceptance" of their "offer"; how defendant and its employees understood the commercial would be viewed, based on test-marketing the commercial or on their own opinions; and how other individuals actually responded to the commercial when it was aired. Second, the tongue-in-cheek attitude of the commercial would not cause a reasonable person to conclude that a soft drink company would be giving away fighter planes as part of a promotion. It must be an act that leads the offeree reasonably to conclude that a power to create a contract is conferred. See Kay-R Elec. Finally, the Harrier Jet swings into view and lands by the side of the school building, next to a bicycle rack. See Simpson, supra, at First, the commercial suggests, as commercials often do, that use of the advertised product will transform what, for most youth, can be a fairly routine and ordinary experience. The ball was partially filled with carbolic acid in powder form. Kimba M. Recovery Credit, 98 F. The force of the wind generated by the Harrier Jet blows off one teacher's clothes, literally defrocking an authority figure. The record does not suggest that the change in the amount of points is probative of the seriousness of the offer. The Restatement Second of Contracts explains that: Advertisements of goods by display, sign, handbill, newspaper, radio or television are not ordinarily intended or understood as offers to sell.

Advertisements as Offers The general rule is that an advertisement does not constitute an offer. As plaintiff suggests, the questions presented by this case implicate questions of contract law "deeply ingrained in the common law of England and the States of the Union. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

leonard v pepsico law teacher

Without such a writing, plaintiff's claim must fail as a matter of law. GTE Products Corp. The three boys gaze in awe at an object rushing overhead, as the military march builds to a crescendo. Philips Medizin Systeme, 92 Civ. It merely sought a reciprocal promise in compliance with the terms of the order form, which does not mention any attack aircraft.

leonard v pepsico 210 f 3d 88 2d cir 2000 case brief

Several students run for cover, and the velocity of the wind strips one hapless faculty member down to his underwear. Von Der Ahe, U.

In leonard v pepsico why was pepsis commercial not considered an offer

The increase in the number of points needed to acquire a Harrier Jet may have been prompted less by the fear that reasonable people would demand Harrier Jets and more by the concern that unreasonable people would threaten frivolous litigation. Pepsi understandably refused to do so, claiming that the TV commercial was mere puffery. Brian Simpson. These arguments suggest merely that the humor of the promotional campaign was tongue in cheek. Finally, plaintiff's assertion that he should be afforded an opportunity to determine whether other individuals also tried to accumulate enough Pepsi Points to "purchase" a Harrier Jet is unavailing. Judgment[ edit ] The court, presided over by Judge Kimba Wood , rejected Leonard's claims and denied recovery on several grounds, including; It was found that the advertisement featuring the jet did not constitute an offer under the Restatement Second of Contracts. Plaintiff responded, demanding his jet and threatening a lawsuit.
Rated 9/10 based on 56 review
Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d (S.D.N.Y. )