3 ms·

> Leonard filed suit, claiming that Pepsi’s ad had constituted as a binding offer. The article says the judge ruled it was not a binding offer for 3 reasons: 1

by bryan0 5y ago

> Leonard filed suit, claiming that Pepsi’s ad had constituted as a binding offer. The article says the judge ruled it was not a binding offer for 3 reasons: 1. Advertisements are generally not considered offers in contract law. 2. The ad was obviously a joke. 3. An enforceable contract requires both parties’ signatures.

kolinko 5y ago
Fun fact ad 3 - in some countries (Poland) there is a concept in law of a public promise. If a corporation publicly promises something (a competition usually), they are obliged to act upon it, even if there were no signatures on the other side.
- garaetjjte 5y ago
  "Above advertisement does not constitute offer as meant by the article 66 of Civil Code" :)
  - ptsneves 5y ago
    Written everywhere in otomoto. Lol never understood what that pesky caveat was there for.
  - pythonaut_16 5y ago
    The legal form of "but I had my fingers crossed so it doesn't count"
- jimnotgym 5y ago
  In England and Wales (Scotland has its own legal system) there is very famous case law that says that an offer can be made to the world at large (through an advert in this case). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Bal... Which may seem to apply, but this was an offer to add a guarantee to the terms. Whereas merely advertising a price is just an invitation for the buyer to make you an offer. Here is an almost as famous case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_GB_v_Boots_Cash_Chemists_(Southern)_Ltd https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_GB... I am not surprised our fellow common law jurisdictions like the US reached the same conclusion. The case law that makes up English civil law, especially the early stuff is really fascinating stuff to me. IANAL but understanding the contact law from these cases has won me several disputes in my professional life.
dfxm12 5y ago
3. An enforceable contract requires both parties’ signatures. This really doesn't jive with what I know about contract law, so I checked the article, and it is more specific: 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. Still, was Pepsi really selling something for more than $500? It's an exchange for Pepsi points (not cash), and even though you can buy them, are they equivalent to cash? Also, on top of that, has anyone signed anything the last time they bought a $500+ laptop, PS5 bundle, unlocked cell phone, etc.? I know a contract has to meet all elements of a contact to actually be a contract, so the other 2 reasons are enough, but this 3rd reason seems out of place, given the situation and even what I learned in my contact law class.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  If the ad was a contractual offer to sell a Harrier jet, it would be generally governed by the UCC, not by basic contract law.
- lordlimecat 5y ago
  The individual in question sent in 15 Pepsi points and a check for $700k. The Pepsi points were irrelevant here. If he had spent a ton of money to make equivalent Pepsi points then maybe there would be a case here.
billytetrud 5y ago
Yes, that is what I'm saying doesn't make sense. If those reasons hold up, then all of bait-and-switch advertising is legal to do - which is obviously not the case. Unless the ruling is saying that bait-and-switch advertising is only ok when its "obviously a joke". I don't really think it was that obvious in the pepsi case tho.

by bryan0 5y ago

kolinko 5y ago

Fun fact ad 3 - in some countries (Poland) there is a concept in law of a public promise. If a corporation publicly promises something (a competition usually), they are obliged to act upon it, even if there were no signatures on the other side.

garaetjjte 5y ago
"Above advertisement does not constitute offer as meant by the article 66 of Civil Code" :)
- ptsneves 5y ago
  Written everywhere in otomoto. Lol never understood what that pesky caveat was there for.
- pythonaut_16 5y ago
  The legal form of "but I had my fingers crossed so it doesn't count"
jimnotgym 5y ago
In England and Wales (Scotland has its own legal system) there is very famous case law that says that an offer can be made to the world at large (through an advert in this case). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Bal... Which may seem to apply, but this was an offer to add a guarantee to the terms. Whereas merely advertising a price is just an invitation for the buyer to make you an offer. Here is an almost as famous case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_GB_v_Boots_Cash_Chemists_(Southern)_Ltd https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_GB... I am not surprised our fellow common law jurisdictions like the US reached the same conclusion. The case law that makes up English civil law, especially the early stuff is really fascinating stuff to me. IANAL but understanding the contact law from these cases has won me several disputes in my professional life.

dfxm12 5y ago

3. An enforceable contract requires both parties’ signatures. This really doesn't jive with what I know about contract law, so I checked the article, and it is more specific: 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. Still, was Pepsi really selling something for more than $500? It's an exchange for Pepsi points (not cash), and even though you can buy them, are they equivalent to cash? Also, on top of that, has anyone signed anything the last time they bought a $500+ laptop, PS5 bundle, unlocked cell phone, etc.? I know a contract has to meet all elements of a contact to actually be a contract, so the other 2 reasons are enough, but this 3rd reason seems out of place, given the situation and even what I learned in my contact law class.

gamblor956 5y ago
If the ad was a contractual offer to sell a Harrier jet, it would be generally governed by the UCC, not by basic contract law.
lordlimecat 5y ago
The individual in question sent in 15 Pepsi points and a check for $700k. The Pepsi points were irrelevant here. If he had spent a ton of money to make equivalent Pepsi points then maybe there would be a case here.

billytetrud 5y ago

Yes, that is what I'm saying doesn't make sense. If those reasons hold up, then all of bait-and-switch advertising is legal to do - which is obviously not the case. Unless the ruling is saying that bait-and-switch advertising is only ok when its "obviously a joke". I don't really think it was that obvious in the pepsi case tho.