3 ms·

The reasons, for those interested but not going to read it, the final one seems a slam dunk too: Advertisements are generally not considered offers in contract

The reasons, for those interested but not going to read it, the final one seems a slam dunk too: Advertisements are generally not considered offers in contract law: “Ads for the sale of goods (TV, radio, newspaper, newsletter)… are merely the requests to offer or negotiate” and an advertiser must accept an offer from a customer for it to be legally formed. The ad was obviously a joke: An “ordinary, reasonable person” would conclude that a soft drink company would not give away a fighter plane as part of a promotion. An enforceable contract requires both parties’ signatures: Under existing law, any contract for the sale of goods worth $500+ must be evidenced by writing; Pepsi did not sign anything.

dsr_ 5y ago
Here's the thing: did Pepsi come through on the other things advertised in that commercial? If they sent a leather jacket for 1450 points and a mountain bike for 3500, then it seems to me that it is against the public interest to allow a company to make such offers and then rescind them arbitrarily. That's why we get small print saying things like "screens are simulated" and "not actual size" and "while supplies last" or "at participating stores only" -- because without those disclaimers, we should be able to rely on statements about prices, promotions and availability.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > That's why we get small print saying things like "screens are simulated" and "not actual size" and "while supplies last" or "at participating stores only" -- because without those disclaimers, we should be able to rely on statements about prices, promotions and availability. If they'd advertise a can for 99ct and make a can look like 1l when it is in fact only 0.5l you could reasonably say that one could've expected 1l cans - these cans exist and this would not be out of the ordinary, even though a bit cheaper than usual. If the can in the advertisement would be the size of a truck, it would be hard to argue that you really thought you would get that for 99ct. If they offer something that is a) very rare, b) insanely expensive and c) not allowed to be owned by a private person, I find it very hard to argue that one could reasonably think this is an actual offer. I agree with you that we should not give companies endless leeway to deceive customers, but let's not discard common sense.
  - ByteJockey 5y ago
    I don't think it's illegal to own a Harrier jet. I think the weapons systems just need to be removed first (there's probably also a lot of paperwork involved). Here's an NPR article about a guy who has one: https://www.npr.org/2014/07/27/335839280/sold-harrier-jump-jet-bought-at-auction https://www.npr.org/2014/07/27/335839280/sold-harrier-jump-j...

dsr_ 5y ago

Here's the thing: did Pepsi come through on the other things advertised in that commercial? If they sent a leather jacket for 1450 points and a mountain bike for 3500, then it seems to me that it is against the public interest to allow a company to make such offers and then rescind them arbitrarily. That's why we get small print saying things like "screens are simulated" and "not actual size" and "while supplies last" or "at participating stores only" -- because without those disclaimers, we should be able to rely on statements about prices, promotions and availability.

Sebb767 5y ago
> That's why we get small print saying things like "screens are simulated" and "not actual size" and "while supplies last" or "at participating stores only" -- because without those disclaimers, we should be able to rely on statements about prices, promotions and availability. If they'd advertise a can for 99ct and make a can look like 1l when it is in fact only 0.5l you could reasonably say that one could've expected 1l cans - these cans exist and this would not be out of the ordinary, even though a bit cheaper than usual. If the can in the advertisement would be the size of a truck, it would be hard to argue that you really thought you would get that for 99ct. If they offer something that is a) very rare, b) insanely expensive and c) not allowed to be owned by a private person, I find it very hard to argue that one could reasonably think this is an actual offer. I agree with you that we should not give companies endless leeway to deceive customers, but let's not discard common sense.
- ByteJockey 5y ago
  I don't think it's illegal to own a Harrier jet. I think the weapons systems just need to be removed first (there's probably also a lot of paperwork involved). Here's an NPR article about a guy who has one: https://www.npr.org/2014/07/27/335839280/sold-harrier-jump-jet-bought-at-auction https://www.npr.org/2014/07/27/335839280/sold-harrier-jump-j...