Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X) | Unit 1: Four Principles | Both Sides Serious? | Pepsi Case Part 2
August 19, 2020
Contract Law: From
Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X)
Unit 1 | Four Principles | Both Sides Serious? | Pepsi Case Part 2
Instructor Charles Fried, Beneficial
Professor of Law:
My re-written lecture notes for Unit 1, Four Principles – Both Sides Serious? – Pepsi Case Part 2 hyperlink: https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ar6iJPTO61dwxDv-IyiktAIdu31z
Here are Two (2) out of the Four (4) Principle types
in which, the government will not stand behind.
1.
Invitation to Dinner – not intent
to create a legal relation?
2.
Silver Watch Case – Both Sides Must be Serious?
a)
Leonard verses PepsiCo Inc.
So, Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors verses
PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) case is similar to Keller (“the Defendant”) verses
Holderman (“the
Plaintiff”) coordinated old silver watch 
[1]
transactional activity case in the year of 1863 which was an offered not meant to be either a
purchase, or a sale to either parties because both sides must be serious in
order to create a legal relation intent. After, Keller (the Defendant) had coordinated an offer to give Holderman (the Plaintiff),
three-hundred dollars ($300) written from Keller (the Defendant) personal bank
account for Holderman (the Plaintiff) old silver watch that was only worth
fifteen dollars ($15). However, in Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his
investors verses PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) case involved much more in litigation
costs intrinsic value in type of monetary
currencies from both parties
litigations to be represented in a judiciary court systems, such as attorney fees,
court costs and other legal fee expenses. As a result, Leonard
(the Plaintiff) and his investors verses PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) lawsuit
was thrown out from the Honorable Judge in which, he had ruled, “an
advertisement cannot be considered an offer, where a reasonable person would
not take it seriously.” Remember, an offer and
bargain are when both
parties must be serious with an intent to create a legal relation. In Leonard (the Plaintiff) and
his investors verses PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) case, only, PepsiCo Inc’s (the Defendant’s) Harrier Fighter Jet was
worth seven million (7,000,000) Pepsi points from their advertised commercial
last segment broadcast onto consumer antennas’ televisions were meant, as a
joke and, PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) did not expect any consumer to take the
Harrier Fighter Jet advertised commercial last segment seriously. So, Leonard
(the Plaintiff) and his investors did take PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant)
commercial advertised last segment, as a serious offer for the Harrier Fighter Jet. And, the
entire trial had costed PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) in today’s intrinsic value in type of monetary currencies approximately
or about two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars or a quarter of a million
dollars ($250,000) from an attorneys’ fees only, as shown in our picture image
below.
Now, how does those cases upheld with our two (2)
out of the four (4) principle types in which, the government will not stand
behind, in what, we have discussed, thus far? We may ask ourselves is Leonard
(the Plaintiff) and his investors verses PepsiCo Inc’s (the Defendant’s)
Harrier Fighter Jet Pepsi points offer case
was most likely similar to Professor Fried (the Defendant) verses Portia’s (the
Plaintiff’s) invitation to dinner case? Well, maybe not as similar, as you may
think because Professor Fried (the Defendant) verses Portia’s (the Plaintiff’s)
invitation to dinner case was an informal friendly interchange occasion that
does not create a legal relation. Even
though, all parties involved were serious who[m] had responded to attend Portia’s
dinner invitation were much more serious than Leonard (the Plaintiff) and
his investors verses PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) case in which, we had discussed
in our last lecture, as shown in our picture image below
As, in Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors verses PepsiCo Inc’s (the Defendant’s) Harrier Fighter Jet Pepsi points offer case had created an informal legal relations intent because both parties must be serious about their coordinated bargain which led to one (1) another offers; in which, PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) offered was not meant to be taken seriously. Similarly, in the old silver watch case, the government will not stand behind Keller (the Defendant) verses Holderman (the Plaintiff) neither. In other words, the government will not stand behind any parties cooperation which leads to their trusts, promises, and commitments from a coordinated bargaining activity which led to one (1) another offers are presented in any judiciary court systems all the time; only if, those parties civil cause of actions’ cases are intended to be real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments by ways of creating a formal legal relations intent.
Sometimes, a parties’ cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments coordinated bargaining activity that led to one (1) another offers seems like, an offers to create a legal relations intent. However, one (1) or more parties does not think their coordinated bargaining activity that led to one (1) another offers were cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments. And, those types of parties offer from a coordinated bargaining activity to one (1) another are considered in creating an informal legal relations intent which sometimes appears, as an official offer when it is not a legitimate offer.
In Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors verses PepsiCo Inc’s (the Defendant’s) Harrier Fighter Jet Pepsi points offer case was a coordinated bargaining activity which led to one (1) another offers appeared as, a cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments and, this particular case quacks like a cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments. So, Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors had decided to compel or force a cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments from a coordinated bargaining activity by ways of an advertised commercial PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) last segment, as a serious offer for the Harrier Fighter Jet broadcast onto their antennas’ televisions civil cause of action case against PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) should have not been considered a serious offer. In addition, in Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors verses PepsiCo Inc’s (the Defendant’s) Harrier Fighter Jet Pepsi points offer case was not considered a social interchange occasion, as in Professor Fried (the Defendant) verses Portia’s (the Plaintiff’s) invitation to dinner case which created an informal legal relation intents.
However, what makes Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors verses PepsiCo Inc’s (the Defendant’s) Harrier Fighter Jet Pepsi points offer case was more complicated to analyzed from the law application test prospective which applies typically to any advertisements does not constitute a serious offer in accordance to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 26. In Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 26 (Preliminary Negotiations) explains that:
A manifestation of willingness is not an offer if the person to whom it is address knows or has reason to know that the person making it does not intend to conclude a bargain without further manifestation of assent.[4]
“A manifestation of one’s willingness” to entered into a coordinated bargaining activity does not on itself constitute an offer including an official comment that specifically addresses advertisement. In which, Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors had coordinated a bargaining for the Harrier Fighter Jet from PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) advertised commercial last segment broadcast onto their antennas’ televisions for seven million (7,000,000) Pepsi points, as an official offer. The seven million (7,000,000) Pepsi points were an equivalent to seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) in a coordinated bargaining exchange activity with PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) through their advertised commercial last segment broadcast was considered a serious offer to Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors. Well, Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors knowingly and willfully knew PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) advertised commercial last segment broadcast onto their antennas’ televisions were not meant to be a serious offer cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments that created an informal legal relations intent. And, Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors had decided to sue PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) in a civil cause of action case, anyway when he and his investors knowingly and willfully knew PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) was not a serious official offer nor was the Harrier Fighter Jet listed onto PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) “Pepsi Stuff Catalog,” as a redeemable item.
We have learned that some parties coordinated bargaining which leads to their offer activities through cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments are real offer, only if, both parties have created a formal legal relation intents and, both parties must be serious about their coordinated bargaining activity which led to one (1) another offer. And, those parties sometimes do not realize their cooperated offers in a coordinated bargaining activity does not expect to be taken to any judiciary court system for a civil cause of actions lawsuits. Especially, when a party civil cause action lawsuit which supposedly had created a formal legal relations intent was analyzed in the Judiciary Court System from the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 26 (Preliminary Negotiations) turns out to be an informal legal relations intent case.
Now, we have discussed three (3) legal relation intents cases in which, two
(2) out of the three (3) legal relation
intents cases such as, Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors verses PepsiCo
Inc’s (the Defendant’s) Harrier Fighter Jet Pepsi points and Keller (“the Defendant”) verses
Holderman’s (“the
Plaintiff’s”) old silver watch cases were coordinated bargaining
activities which led to a parties offers
through cooperation in trusts,
promises, and commitments that appears to be a real offers when both cases were not meant to be
taken seriously in one (1) another offers. And, the invitation to dinner case did created
a formal legal relations
intent with a real cooperation in trusts,
promises, and commitments are real offer
and Professor Fried (the Defendant) created a legal
relations intent when he did not to show up at Portia coordinated invitation to dinner bargained activities. The invitation to dinner
case was an official legal relations intent and
foul play by Professor Fried (the Defendant). However, the invitation
to dinner case was an informal friendly interchange occasion that does
not create a legal relations intent
in any judiciary court of law. And, this is a kind of case in which, any
parties expect to in up in any judiciary court system. So, Portia (the
Plaintiff) can tell Professor Fried’s (the Defendant’s) friends what a lair he
is and, Portia (the Plaintiff) can ruin Professor Fried’s (the Defendant’s)
reputations by ways of rumors. However, no Judiciary Judges, Jurors and
attorneys do not want to have anything to with an informal friendly interchange
occasions case. Those types of informal legal
relations intent cases, we have just analyzed are
playing in the wrong arena. Therefore, not every coordinated bargaining
activity which leads to a one (1)
another offers through cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments are considered a contract.
[1]
Maurer, Benjamin. Unknown. HarvardX: HLS2X
Contract Law: from Trust to Promise to Contract,
Charles Fried, edX, Unit 1 – Four
Principles – Both Side Serious? – Silver Watch Case,
[2]
Maurer, Benjamin. Unknown. HarvardX: HLS2X
Contract Law: from Trust to Promise to Contract,
Charles Fried, edX, Unit 1 – Four
Principles – Both Side Serious? – Pepsi Case Part 2, https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:Harvardx+HLS2X+2T2020/courseware/f542d74700b14efa9142e5334004bd1c/7111286829454b309a60fceba4a2f59a/2?activate_block_id=block-v1%3AHarvardx%2BHLS2X%2B2T2020%2Btype%40video%2Bblock%40ae87be7ea7464d80990c27d72104bab7
[3]
Maurer, Benjamin. Unknown. HarvardX: HLS2X
Contract Law: from Trust to Promise to Contract,
Charles Fried, edX, Unit 1 – Four
Principles – Both Side Serious? – Pepsi Case Part 2, https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:Harvardx+HLS2X+2T2020/courseware/f542d74700b14efa9142e5334004bd1c/7111286829454b309a60fceba4a2f59a/2?activate_block_id=block-v1%3AHarvardx%2BHLS2X%2B2T2020%2Btype%40video%2Bblock%40ae87be7ea7464d80990c27d72104bab7
[4]
Contract Outline Fall 2012 Frug. [PDF]. (2012).
https://www.easybib.com/guides/citation-guides/how-do-i-cite-a/pdf-article/.
Comments