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
mNo edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| 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 | |||
}} | |||
{{Court opinion part | |||
|opinion_order=1 | |||
|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. 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. | '''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. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 23: | ||
'''Judgment''': Affirmed. | '''Judgment''': Affirmed. | ||
[ | ===Link=== | ||
* [https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1957/37-220.html Case text at Justia] | |||
Revision as of 22:35, January 7, 2020
| 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 |
|- cellpadding="10" border="1" ! |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. 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: 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?
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.
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.
Judgment: Affirmed.
