A cCase report on contracts
Leonard v PepsiCo Inc 88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) is a case that arises due to an advertising campaign by the producer and the distributor of Pepsi and diet Pepsi soft drink. The advertisement known as Pepsi stuff gave consumers the ability to acquire Pepsi points. The points were only from specially marked packages of Pepsi and to redeem the points for products presenting the Pepsi logo. The Pepsi defendant performed a test on the Pepsi advertisement in the pacific northwest for a year before introducing it nationally.
The Pepsi stuff catalogue was given to the consumers to test the market, which included Washington state. Plaintiff who is a resident of Seattle Washington saw a commercial on Pepsi stuff catalogue that had an offer of a Harrier jet. In an attempt by plaintiff to redeem the alleged proposal, the fulfilment house of the defendant rejected his submission and returned the check. They claimed that the presentation was not part of Pepsi stuff. They further said the harrier jet in the commercial was fancy and used as a form of entertainment and to give a sense of humour. Plaintiff counsel provided a videotape proving that a new harrier jet was an offer in the commercial. Therefore, PepsiCo had ten business days to respond or else actions against Pepsi taken.
Consideration, therefore, made that the promotions on products by displaying, through newspapers, televisions or radios do not necessarily mean that they are offers. There must be a language of commitment before an offer placed in an advertisement directed to the general public. In conclusion, plaintiff demands disqualified from being a matter of the law reason being that the commercial was just an advertisement and not a unilateral offer. Secondly, a reasonable person would not think that a soft drink company would give out a harrier jet on a promotion. And lastly, there was no evidence in writing that showed that the two parties had an agreement on the offer to satisfy the statute of frauds. The reasons, therefore, lead to the closure of the case by the clerk of the court.
References
Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).