Consent Case Of Leonard V. Pepsi Cola
Hector A. Vasquez
Shoula Romano Horing
MSM 517
20 August 2013
Leonard v. Pepsi Cola
The Assigned case that I am to discuss is Leonard v. Pepsi Cola. In this paper I will discuss the facts of the case, the history, issues the court had to decide, the holding or the answer to the questions, the reasoning the court used to justify the decision, and finally the results and the judgment. The Facts is the Leonard sued Pepsi Co for refusing a formal demand to honor its offer. The history of this case is; Pepsi Co ran a promotional campaign in which consumers were invited to acquire “Pepsi Points” by purchasing Pepsi products, and exchange them for “Pepsi Stuff”. Leonard the Plaintiff received a catalog for use in redeeming “Pepsi
Points”. The TV commercial featured merchandise available through the promotion such as T-shirts, Leather Jacket, Sunglasses and a Harrier Jet for 7 Million Pepsi Points. Leonard saw the commercials and contended that the commercial constituted a valid offer to acquire the jet for 7 Million Pepsi Points. Leonard obtained a catalog and noticed that the order form did not include the Harrier Jet. The catalog stated that merchandise could only be ordered via original order form. The form also indicated that additional points could be purchased for ten cents each. Leonard raised $700,000 in order to purchase the 7 Million points needed to acquire the jet. Leonard submitted a completed order form together with a check and wrote in “1 Harrier Jet” at the bottom of the form. Leonard indicated that the check was for the express purpose of purchasing the points needed to obtain a new Harrier jet as advertised in the commercial. Pepsi Co rejected the submission and returned the check, noting in its rejection that the jet was not in the catalog and thus could not be acquired through the promotion. Pepsi Co apologized for any misunderstanding and informed Leonard that the commercial was intended to be humorous and entertaining. Leonard sued when Pepsi Co refused a formal demand to honor its offer. Pepsi Co moved for a “Summary” judgment. A Summary judgment is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. The issues the court had to decide were; when is summary judgment proper in the context of a contract formation? What standard is applied in determining whether some communication constitutes an offer? And is an advertisement an offer? The court’s “Holding and Rule” was the Summary judgment is proper when the words and actions that form a contract are so clear that reasonable people could not differ over their meaning. Whether something constitutes an offer is determined under the objective reasonable person standard, and No. The general rule is that an advertisement does not constitute an offer. The reasoning for the decision was the court held that in this case no objective reasonable person could have concluded that the commercial constituted an offer for a Harrier jet. The court noted that the commercial itself was highly improbable because the youth featured could barely be trusted with the keys to his parents’ car, much less the Harrier jet. The court also stated that the notion of traveling to school in a Harrier jet was exaggerated adolescent fantasy. Furthermore the actual cost of the jet exceeded $23 million and the offer was therefore unbelievable. The court held that it was clear that no serious offer for a Harrier jet was made. The result was that the Motion for summary judgment was granted, and Pepsi Co did not have to award a Harrier Jet to Leonard.
Works Cited
Jennings, Marianne J. Business Its legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009, Print,
Shoula Romano Horing
MSM 517
20 August 2013
Leonard v. Pepsi Cola
The Assigned case that I am to discuss is Leonard v. Pepsi Cola. In this paper I will discuss the facts of the case, the history, issues the court had to decide, the holding or the answer to the questions, the reasoning the court used to justify the decision, and finally the results and the judgment. The Facts is the Leonard sued Pepsi Co for refusing a formal demand to honor its offer. The history of this case is; Pepsi Co ran a promotional campaign in which consumers were invited to acquire “Pepsi Points” by purchasing Pepsi products, and exchange them for “Pepsi Stuff”. Leonard the Plaintiff received a catalog for use in redeeming “Pepsi
Points”. The TV commercial featured merchandise available through the promotion such as T-shirts, Leather Jacket, Sunglasses and a Harrier Jet for 7 Million Pepsi Points. Leonard saw the commercials and contended that the commercial constituted a valid offer to acquire the jet for 7 Million Pepsi Points. Leonard obtained a catalog and noticed that the order form did not include the Harrier Jet. The catalog stated that merchandise could only be ordered via original order form. The form also indicated that additional points could be purchased for ten cents each. Leonard raised $700,000 in order to purchase the 7 Million points needed to acquire the jet. Leonard submitted a completed order form together with a check and wrote in “1 Harrier Jet” at the bottom of the form. Leonard indicated that the check was for the express purpose of purchasing the points needed to obtain a new Harrier jet as advertised in the commercial. Pepsi Co rejected the submission and returned the check, noting in its rejection that the jet was not in the catalog and thus could not be acquired through the promotion. Pepsi Co apologized for any misunderstanding and informed Leonard that the commercial was intended to be humorous and entertaining. Leonard sued when Pepsi Co refused a formal demand to honor its offer. Pepsi Co moved for a “Summary” judgment. A Summary judgment is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. The issues the court had to decide were; when is summary judgment proper in the context of a contract formation? What standard is applied in determining whether some communication constitutes an offer? And is an advertisement an offer? The court’s “Holding and Rule” was the Summary judgment is proper when the words and actions that form a contract are so clear that reasonable people could not differ over their meaning. Whether something constitutes an offer is determined under the objective reasonable person standard, and No. The general rule is that an advertisement does not constitute an offer. The reasoning for the decision was the court held that in this case no objective reasonable person could have concluded that the commercial constituted an offer for a Harrier jet. The court noted that the commercial itself was highly improbable because the youth featured could barely be trusted with the keys to his parents’ car, much less the Harrier jet. The court also stated that the notion of traveling to school in a Harrier jet was exaggerated adolescent fantasy. Furthermore the actual cost of the jet exceeded $23 million and the offer was therefore unbelievable. The court held that it was clear that no serious offer for a Harrier jet was made. The result was that the Motion for summary judgment was granted, and Pepsi Co did not have to award a Harrier Jet to Leonard.
Works Cited
Jennings, Marianne J. Business Its legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009, Print,