Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X) | Unit 1: Four Principles | Both Sides Serious? | Pepsi Case Part 1
Photo by ian dooley on Unsplash
August 13, 2020
Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X
Unit 1 | Four Principles | Both Sides Serious? | Pepsi Case Part
Instructor Charles Fried, Beneficial Professor of Law
My re-written lecture notes for Unit 1, Four Principles – Both Sides Serious? – Pepsi Case Part 1 hyperlink: https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ar6iJPTO61dwxDoWo5ozEGaLVYFf
Now, Professor Fried had given us, his first (1st) two (2) out of the four (4) principle types and, in this online section lecture, he will challenge us with a more contemporary example which will become much more difficult to analyzes. In this reference of time in 1996, in the Leonard (“the Plaintiff”) verses PepsiCo Inc. (“the Defendant”) case.
Here are Two (2) out of the Four (4) Principles 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.
PepsiCo Inc. had an advertisement promotional campaigns commercial onto all viewers’ antennas televisions. And, you have most likely seen those types of television advertisements promotional campaigns commercial targeting a certain viewer markets all the time onto your antenna television[s].
How the PepsiCo Inc. advertisement commercial were promoted in which, any consumers who[m] purchased any bottle of Pepsi beverages and, collect those Pepsi bottle caps would have received a Pepsi points for each Pepsi bottle cap in an accumulation; in order to redeem items from the “Pepsi Stuff Catalog,” in an equivalence to those Pepsi point values of those items are as follows:
1.
T-Shirt for 75 points in Pepsi
bottle caps,
2.
Sunglasses for 175 points in Pepsi
bottle caps, and a
3. Leather Jacket for 1,450 points in Pepsi bottle caps.
And, if those consumer had collected and accumulated enough Pepsi bottle caps in points for example, one-thousand four-hundred and fifty (1,450) Pepsi bottle caps in points then a consumer would have enough Pepsi bottle caps points; in order to redeem items from the Pepsi Stuff Catalog such as, a leather jacket with a Pepsi’s logo insignia on the back of each Pepsi leather jackets.
So, PepsiCo Inc, advertisement promotional campaigns commercial in regards to consumer purchasing any Pepsi beverages and, collect those Pepsi bottle caps would have received a Pepsi points for each Pepsi bottle cap collected and accumulated; in order to redeem items from the Pepsi Stuff Catalog had played out onto all viewers’ antennas televisions, as shown in the YouTube video below.
https://youtu.be/ZdackF2H7Qc [1]
The PepsiCo Inc. promotional campaigns commercial from this reference point in time was very well-known advertisement where items were priced via subtitles displays with various Pepsi point values. And, of course, the PepsiCo Inc promotional campaigns commercial advertisement culminates when a male High School student landed his Harrier Fighter Jet at his High School building near the students’ bikes racks and, the PepsiCo Inc., commercial had ended with the subtitle displaying of the seven-million (7,000,000) Pepsi points which implies any consumer could purchase a Harrier Fighter Jet for seven-million (7,000,000) Pepsi points were displayed onto those viewers’ antennas televisions in a commercial advertisements.
Now, in the Leonard verses PepsiCo Inc. (88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) litigation case. Begins, after, the twenty-one (21) years old male college student who first (1st) name is Leonard (the Plaintiff) saw PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) advertisement promotional campaigns on his antenna television and, Leonard (the Plaintiff) was intrigued in the last segment of PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) advertised commercial where the Harrier Fighter Jet subtitle displayed a message, as the “Harrier Fighter 7,000,000 Pepsi points.” So, Leonard (the Plaintiff) had discovered by reading PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) advertisement terms had permitted any consumers can redeem any Pepsi Stuff Catalog items directly at ten cents (.10) per point was similar to a redeemable airline frequent flyers miles. In which, the Harrier Fighter Jet for seven million (7,000,000) Pepsi points was not included in the Pepsi Stuff Catalog, as one of PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) listed item. So, Leonard (the Plaintiff) thought to himself, how cool would it be in owning the Harrier Fighter Jet and, Leonard (the Plaintiff) imagination in owning a Harrier Fighter Jet great idea had begun to spring up roots. Only if, he could secure investors to help him purchase PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) advertised Harrier Fighter Jet from PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) directly with their intrinsic value in type of the Pepsi bottle cap point was worth ten cents (.10) per cap which was an equivalent to the monetary value of ten cents (.10) per dollar was an equivalent to seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000).
In which, Professor Fried mathematical computation of PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) advertised Harrier Fighter Jet was worth approximately seven million (7,000,000) Pepsi points times (x) Leonard (the Plaintiff) offer price for the Harrier Fighter Jet in an intrinsic value measurements of unit type in money currencies was worth ten cents (.10) or ten percent (10%) of a dollar was an equivalent to seven hundred thousand dollars (7,000,000 x .10 = $700,000). And, along with Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his secure investors, he had secured and coordinated the Harrier Fighter Jet offering in an intrinsic value in type of the cashier check payment in the amount of seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) to PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) activity.
In 1995, a Harrier Fighter Jets cost approximately or about thirty-three million dollars ($33,000,000). Today a Harrier Fighter Jets models are mostly likely decommissioned fighter jets and, a new model, known as F-35 fighter jets are currently estimated values between ninety-four million ($94,000,000) and one-hundred and twenty-two million dollars ($122,000,000) or a quarter of a billion dollars.
After, Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors had drawn a cashier check in the amount of seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) payable to PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant). Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors’ seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) cashier check payable to PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) was as good as intrinsic value in type of monetary currencies then Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors sent to PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) their Pepsi Stuff Catalog order form. After, Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors written onto their Pepsi Stuff Catalog order form because there was no checkbox for the Harrier Fighter Jet selection. So, Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors had added or written onto the Pepsi Stuff Catalog order form one “one Harrier Jet, 7 million Pepsi Points.”
Well, what do you think PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) did? PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) said:
We, PepsiCo family is sorry, you and your investors had misunderstood our advertisement promotional Pepsi bottle caps campaigns commercial for the Harrier Fighter Jet segment was not meant, as a serious offer or promise to any consumer. Therefore, we, PepsiCo family is returning your seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) cashier check payable to PepsiCo Inc. because the last segment of our Pepsi bottle caps campaigns commercial where the Harrier Fighter Jet subtitle displayed a message, as the “Harrier Fighter 7,000,000 Pepsi points” was meant, as a joke and we did not expect any consumers to take our Harrier Fighter Jet advertisement segment seriously. We are sorry for your inconveniences from our advertisement promotional Pepsi bottle caps campaigns commercial broadcast for a Harrier Fighter Jet segmented had caused you and your investors.
Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors more or less expected, PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) to reject their coordinated Harrier Fighter Jet offer in an intrinsic value in type of cashier check payment in the amount of seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000). And, Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors next step were to hire and retain an attorney; in order to sue PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) in a civil cause of action because PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) advertisement promotional Pepsi bottle caps campaigns commercial had displayed an offer for Harrier Fighter Jet, as it did for seven-million (7,000,000) Pepsi points were displayed onto Leonard (the Plaintiff) antenna television. As an intrinsic value price for the Harrier Fighter Jet constituted a valid offer that Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors had accepted by submitting their cashier cash in the amount of seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) along with their Pepsi Stuff Catalog order form, as written in one “Harrier Jet, 7 million Pepsi Points” onto the Pepsi Stuff Catalog order form.
Professor Fried had assumed that Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors sue PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) to either force PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) to deliver the Harrier Fighter Jet from their submitted seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) cashier check valued in Pepsi points, or sue PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) to write Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors a residual or depreciation value of the Harrier Fight Jet for example, if the Harrier Fighter Jet depreciated value was fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) plus an additional seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) cashier check for their attorney fees and other expenses, which was a real money legal case that added up for their Harrier Fighter Jet constituted a valid offer which lead to a higher expensive litigation costs. If Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors win their lawsuit against PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant).
Now, PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) could not possibly coordinated a Harrier Fighter Jet offer to Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors because any Harrier Fighter Jets are military aircrafts and in the Department of Defense jurisdiction; therefore, no United States civilians are not allowed to own any military arsenals weaponry equipment. However, Professor Fried is not sure, what happens to any Harrier Fighter Jets; after, any Harrier Fighter Jets are decommissioned from the Department of Defense inventory.
Now, Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors verses PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) case had started out in the Florida State judiciary court system, where none of Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors lives. And, the Florida State judiciary court system move Leonard (the Plaintiff) and his investors verses PepsiCo Inc. (the Defendant) case to the New York States, and in the New York State, the Honorable Judge had decided:
The Plaintiff's insistence (Leonard) that the commercial appears to be a serious offer requires the court to explain why the commercial is funny. Explaining why a joke is funny is a daunting task;
as the essayist E.B. White has remarked:
''Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind.''[2]
The commercial is the embodiment of what PepsiCo
Inc. (the Defendant) appropriately characterizes, as zany humor.
In light of the obvious absurdity of the Pepsi commercial broadcast the court rejects Leonard's argument that the commercial was not clearly in jest."
as shown in the official law school case brief below:
Law School Case Brief
Leonard v.
Pepsico, Inc. - 88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
RULE:
An
advertisement can not be considered an offer, where a reasonable person would
not take it seriously.
FACTS:
Plaintiff
saw a Pepsi advertisement showing that "points" could be earned by
purchasing its products and exchanging them for Pepsi merchandise. At the end
of the ad, a student was shown landing a Harrier Jet at school with a subtitle
that indicated the cost of the jet was 7,000,000 points. The terms of the
promotion indicated that additional points could be purchased for ten cents.
Plaintiff, with the assistance of several friends, accumulated enough money to
"buy" the Harrier Jet and sent a check to the defendant, demanding
the jet. Defendant refused and sent a letter to plaintiff explaining that the
jet was not an item for purchase and referred him to the promotional brochure
for the rules. Plaintiff then sued for breach of contract. Defendant filed a
motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion and stated that
advertisements were not contracts or offers to sell, but rather invitations to
negotiate.
ISSUE:
Did the
Pepsi commercial constitute an offer to sell?
ANSWER:
No.
CONCLUSION:
It is quite possible to make a
definite and operative offer to buy or sell goods by advertisement, in a
newspaper, by a handbill, a catalog or circular or on a placard in a store
window. Such advertisements are understood to be mere requests to consider
and examine and negotiate; and no one can reasonably regard them as
otherwise unless the circumstances are exceptional and the words used are very
plain and clear. The commercial was merely an advertisement, not a unilateral
offer. The commercial cannot be regarded in itself as sufficiently
definite, because it specifically reserved the details of the offer to a
separate writing, the Catalog. [3]
[1]
Nonfps. “Pepsi Harrier Jet Commercial 1.” Online Video Clip. YouTube. YouTube,
04 Nov 2007.
Wed.
12 Aug 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdackF2H7Qc.
[2] Schmuhl, Robert. “Humor, Alas, Has Become A Grim
Subject.” Chicago Tribune, 14 November 1991,
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1991-11-14-9104120161-story.html. Accessed on 13 August 2020.
[3] United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. Leonard v. PepsiCo Inc. 5 August 1999. Lexis Nexis,
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-leonard-v-pepsico-inc.
Comments