4 ms·

Similar to the guy that bought a fighter jet from Pepsi but they reneged on their contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc https://en.wi

Similar to the guy that bought a fighter jet from Pepsi but they reneged on their contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

NoboruWataya 3y ago
They didn't renege on their contract; there was no contract.
tialaramex 3y ago
There was no contract. The result of Leonard v Pepsico makes lots of sense read in the context of something like Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (the classic English contract law case every student learns). In Carlill the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. claimed it had never intended a contract to arise, that the advertisements were just "puffery" and no reasonable person should have expected (as Carlill did) that if they do what it says in the advert and yet they get Influenza anyway (Carbolic Smoke Balls were a bogus cure for flu) they can claim the £100 stated (then a considerable sum of money) like it says in the advert. The judge said well, why does the advert explain that the company has £1000 in a bank account? If there's no intention to pay people money, why did you make a bank account, put money in it and tell them about it? No, this is clearly a contract, you offered, she accepted by performance, now you need to pay the nice lady. But Pepsico clearly doesn't expect to give out fighter jets. It doesn't have any fighter jets, and the depicted scenario is ludicrous, which is exactly the opposite situation. We can see that - at least after the initial hype - John Leonard saw this as a profile opportunity more than a serious attempt to get Pepsico to give him a jet, when he's like oh, this shouldn't be a Federal trial, this should be in front of a jury of my peers, and I define "My peers" to be "The Pepsi generation" that's clearly not serious any more.

4 ms·

Similar to the guy that bought a fighter jet from Pepsi but they reneged on their contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc https://en.wi

by swader999 3y ago

NoboruWataya 3y ago
They didn't renege on their contract; there was no contract.
tialaramex 3y ago
There was no contract. The result of Leonard v Pepsico makes lots of sense read in the context of something like Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (the classic English contract law case every student learns). In Carlill the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. claimed it had never intended a contract to arise, that the advertisements were just "puffery" and no reasonable person should have expected (as Carlill did) that if they do what it says in the advert and yet they get Influenza anyway (Carbolic Smoke Balls were a bogus cure for flu) they can claim the £100 stated (then a considerable sum of money) like it says in the advert. The judge said well, why does the advert explain that the company has £1000 in a bank account? If there's no intention to pay people money, why did you make a bank account, put money in it and tell them about it? No, this is clearly a contract, you offered, she accepted by performance, now you need to pay the nice lady. But Pepsico clearly doesn't expect to give out fighter jets. It doesn't have any fighter jets, and the depicted scenario is ludicrous, which is exactly the opposite situation. We can see that - at least after the initial hype - John Leonard saw this as a profile opportunity more than a serious attempt to get Pepsico to give him a jet, when he's like oh, this shouldn't be a Federal trial, this should be in front of a jury of my peers, and I define "My peers" to be "The Pepsi generation" that's clearly not serious any more.