3 ms·
1) Ok. And the intent at time of advertising was always not to see the jet. So I don't see your point. Still seems to apply at the time of advertising. 2) They
by billytetrud 5y ago
1) Ok. And the intent at time of advertising was always not to see the jet. So I don't see your point. Still seems to apply at the time of advertising.
2) They did indeed not ever intend to sell the thing advertised. So again, what are you talking about?
I dunno man, I guess I just disagree.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> And the intent at time of advertising was always not to see the jet And the court ruled that no one could reasonably view it as an offer to make the jet available as a reward. Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product?
- billytetrud 5y ago> the court ruled that no one could reasonably view it as an offer to make the jet available as a reward And I told you I think they were wrong. > Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product? All of the other garbage they sold for Pepsi points...
- billytetrud 5y ago> the court ruled that no one could reasonably view it as an offer to make the jet available as a reward And I told you I think they were wrong. > Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product? All of the other garbage they sold for Pepsi points...