This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''Facts''': Defendant put ad in the newspaper two successive weeks that it would sell a fur coat and other fur items to the first comer at the store at 9 a.m. the following Satu...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
(14 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|court=Supreme Court of Minnesota | |||
|citation=86 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1957) | |||
|date=December 20, 1957 | |||
|subject=Contracts | |||
|appealed_from=Municipal Court of Minneapolis | |||
|facts=Defendant put ad in the newspaper two successive weeks that it would sell a fur coat and other fur items to the first comer at the store at 9 a.m. the following Saturday for a price of $1. One item was said to be worth $139.50. | |||
''' | Lefkowitz (male plaintiff) went each Saturday and was the first person there, ready and willing to pay the $1. Each time he was told that the sale was ''for women only''. | ||
|procedural_history=Lefkowitz (male plaintiff) filed a lawsuit in a municipal court for breach of [[Contract law in the United States|contract]]. | |||
Municipal court of Minneapolis awarded Plaintiff $138.50 and denied motion by Defendant for amended findings or new trial. | |||
|issues=Did the ad constitute an offer? | |||
''' | Does an advertisement for the sale of goods that is clear, definite (with a time window for sale), explicit, & leaves nothing up for negotiation, constitute a binding '''offer''' that becomes enforceable upon '''acceptance''' by a buyer? | ||
|arguments=Defendant argued that the ad was a "unilateral offer," so it could be rescinded at any time. Ads were simply an invitation for someone to come in and offer to buy the items, and the seller could then accept the offer, reject it, or modify the price. | |||
|holding=The specific definite advertisement was an offer. | |||
|judgment=Affirmed | |||
|reasons=The ad was clear, definite, and left nothing open for negotiation. Plaintiff fulfilled all requirements of the ad, so should have been given what was promised. The ad did not state the restriction to women only, so the "contract" between the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot be changed after the acceptance of the offer. | |||
|rule=Advertisements are generally not considered offers. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/lefkowitz-v-great-minneapolis-surplus-store | |||
|source_type=Video summary | |||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/lefkowitz-v-great-minneapolis-surplus-store-inc | |||
|case_text_source=CaseText | |||
}} | |||
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part | |||
|written_by=Murphy | |||
}} | |||
|links=https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1957/37-220.html | |||
}} |
Latest revision as of 03:40, July 14, 2023
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store | |
Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota |
---|---|
Citation | 86 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1957) |
Date decided | December 20, 1957 |
Appealed from | Municipal Court of Minneapolis |
Case Opinions | |
written by Murphy |
Facts
Defendant put ad in the newspaper two successive weeks that it would sell a fur coat and other fur items to the first comer at the store at 9 a.m. the following Saturday for a price of $1. One item was said to be worth $139.50.
Lefkowitz (male plaintiff) went each Saturday and was the first person there, ready and willing to pay the $1. Each time he was told that the sale was for women only.Procedural History
Lefkowitz (male plaintiff) filed a lawsuit in a municipal court for breach of contract.
Issues
Did the ad constitute an offer?
Does an advertisement for the sale of goods that is clear, definite (with a time window for sale), explicit, & leaves nothing up for negotiation, constitute a binding offer that becomes enforceable upon acceptance by a buyer?Arguments
Defendant argued that the ad was a "unilateral offer," so it could be rescinded at any time. Ads were simply an invitation for someone to come in and offer to buy the items, and the seller could then accept the offer, reject it, or modify the price.
Holding
The specific definite advertisement was an offer.
Judgment
Affirmed
Reasons
The ad was clear, definite, and left nothing open for negotiation. Plaintiff fulfilled all requirements of the ad, so should have been given what was promised. The ad did not state the restriction to women only, so the "contract" between the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot be changed after the acceptance of the offer.
Rule
Advertisements are generally not considered offers.