Among the legal and historical resources offered on the web site of fordham university of new york is a collection of contracts from ancient mesopotamia dating back to between 2300 and 428 bce go to the url listed above and scan through these contracts in the category of contracts titled. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site if you are interested, please contact us at [email protected. Leonard v pepsico, inc 88 f supp 3d 116 (sdny 1999) wood, usdj: plaintiff brought this action seeking, among other things, specific performance of an alleged. Facts: plaintiff saw an advertisement for a pepsi commercial in which pepsi sought to promote their products by having a point system that is, the more pepsi products you buy, the more points you obtain and you are than able to re-deem the points for merchandise in the official pepsi catalog.
Class meeting page 2 leonard v pepsico, inc united states district court for the southern district of new york 88 f supp 2d 116 (1999) wood, usdj. Upon seeing the commercial, leonard, a 21 year old business student, did a little research and came to a startling conclusion- the pepsi harrier giveaway was actually an amazing deal at only 7,000,000 points. Executive summary leonard v pepsico this case involved a contract dispute between mr john leonard and pepsico inc arising from the claims that an advertisement by pepsico for a harrier jet aircraft in exchange for pepsi points was a valid contract.
Discussion this case illustrates that when an advertisement that would normally be considered and offer, are so absurd that a reasonable person would not consider them to be serious, then there is no offer and there cannot be any acceptance. 2 devoted to an otherwise dull physics lesson finally, the harrier jet swings into view and lands by the side of the school building, next to a bicycle rack. Pepsico rejected the submission, stating that only items in the catalog or on the order form could be redeemed leonard exchanged demand letters with both pepsico and the advertising company responsible for the commercial.
Pepsico (defendant), advertised pepsi related paraphernalia, which one could obtain by getting pepsi points by drinking pepsi the commercial featured a youth arriving at school in a harrier jet and said the harrier jet was 7,000,000 pepsi points. (see affidavit of michael e mccabe, 96 civ 5320, aug 14, 1997, exh 6 (leonard business plan)) even if an objective, reasonable person were not aware of this fact, he would conclude that purchasing a fighter plane for $700,000 is a deal too good to be true. Leonard versus pepsico, inc has a root issue of an advertisement as an offer generally speaking, commercials are not considered offers rather they are viewed as an invitation for the consumer to make an offer to the seller to purchase or exchange for goods.
Judgment the court, presided over by judge kimba wood, rejected leonard's claims and denied recovery on many grounds, including it was found that the advertisement featuring the jet did not constitute an offer under the restatement (second) of contracts. 2d 116,, aff'd 210 f3d 88, more widely known as the pepsi points case, is a contracts case tried in the united states district court for the southern district of new york in 1999, in which the plaintiff, john leonard, sued pepsico, inc in an effort to enforce an offer to redeem 7,000,000 pepsi points for an av-8 harrier ii jump jet which pepsico had shown in a portion of a televised. United states v hark presents several appellate issues stemming from archibald archie hark's conviction for distributing more than 100 grams of heroin after the jury delivered its verdict at trial, hark moved for acquittal on the basis that federal drug enforcement officials, including agent paul lopez, had induced him to deal the. Pepsico rejected the submission and returned the check, noting in its rejection that the jet was not in the catalog and thus could not acquired through the promotion pepsico apologized for any misunderstanding and informed leonard that the commercial was intended to be humorous and entertaining.
Leonard developed a pool of investors (pepsi drinkers) and delivered 15 pepsico points and a check for $700,00850 for the remaining 6,999,985 points plus shipping and handling pepsico refused to provide leonard with a harrier jet because it said the ad was not an offer but a joke. Leonard v pepsico, inc 18 likes leonard v pepsico, inc, 88 f supp 2d 116, (sdny 1999), aff'd 210 f3d 88 (2d cir 2000), more widely known as. Leonard v pepsico intent to be bound was a barrier help support contractsprof blog by making purchases through amazon links on this site at no cost to you join amazon prime - watch over. Listed below are those cases in which this featured case is cited click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case 210 f3d 88 - leonard v pepsico, inc, united states court of appeals, second circuit 123 fsupp2d 750 - dealtimecom v mcnulty, united states district court, sd.