Lefkowitz v Greater Minn Surplus Store

Lefkowitz v Greater Minn Surplus Store - item offered in...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case Briefs John L. Kachelman, III ~ 1 ~ Lefkowitz v. Greater Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. 251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689 (Sup. Ct. Minn. 1957) Type of Action Breach of Contract Facts Defendant published two advertisements in the newspaper to sell certain items, two weeks in a row. Both weeks, the plaintiff showed up at the store in order to take advantage of the offer and was refused on both occasions. On the first occasion he demanded the coat that was offered, but the defendant refused to sell it to him—stating the “house rule” that the offer was for women only. The second occasion he was again refused the item, and was told that he knew of the house rule due to the previous incident. Procedural History Municipal Ct. of Minneapolis—found for plaintiff, damages of $138.50 (denied motion of defendant for amended findings) Sup. Ct.—Affirmed Contentions of Plaintiff Contends that the newspaper ad was an offer and upon his agreeing to the offer by showing up, he was entitled to the
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: item offered in the advertisment. Contentions of Defendant A newspaper advertisement is a “unilateral offer” when asking a certain price and may be revoked without any notice. The offer was modified by a “house rule” so that only women were able to purchase the items. Issue(s) Does the advertisement constitute a legal offer and if so, does the plaintiff’s conduct warrant an acceptance? Holding YES. Rule(s) The test for determining a binding contract is to see whether the facts contained within the advertisment so what some performance was promised in positive terms in return for something requested. Rationale The language which the advertisement contained was very explicit, clear, defined, and did not leave any questions as to the negotiation of a deal. There were stipulations regarding the performance of the contract (i.e. being the first there) which the plaintiff followed. Result AFFIRMED...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/15/2009 for the course LAW 577 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at Arizona.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online