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.
mNo edit summary
m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "")
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
''Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store'', Inc 86 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1957).
{{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.  


'''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. 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.
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]].


'''Procedural History''': Municipal court of Minneapolis awarded Plaintiff $138.50 and denied motion by Defendant for amended findings or new trial.


'''Issue''': Did the ad constitute an offer?
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?


'''Arguments''': Defendant argued that the ad was a "unilateral offer," so it could be rescinded at any time.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.
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''': Ad was an offer.
|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.
|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.
'''Judgment''': Affirmed.
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
[[Category:Cases:Contracts]]
|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.


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

Retrieved from "https://mediawiki-225844-3854743.cloudwaysapps.com/w/index.php?title=Lefkowitz_v._Great_Minneapolis_Surplus_Store&oldid=46070"