BLW ch 10 brief

BLW ch 10 brief - who tried to purchase from the store at...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Stephanie Baggio Professor Devience BLW 201 Ch. 10 Lefkowitz Brief Lefkowtiz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. Facts: There was an advertisement in the newspaper stating a clear, definite, and explicit sale price and quantity at a store. A man followed everything the advertisement stated as to what time and the sale price, however, the store would not sell to him because the sale was intended for women. The man is suing the store on a basis of breach of contract because the store would not sell to him at the stated sale price. Issue/Dispute: The issue is whether or not a contract or agreement had been formed. The store argued the advertisement was merely an invitation to enter into agreement, not necessarily an offer, and that the store, or the offeror, can revoke it at any time. However, the plaintiff, the man
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: who tried to purchase from the store at the stated sale price, claims that the advertisement was an offer because it was clear and it was a promise for an act. Decision: The court held that because the offer the clear, definite, and explicit and it was a promise for an act, an agreement had been formed. The promise was the mink scarf for one dollar while the act was being the first customer in the store and presenting one dollar. The agreement was formed when the man entered the store because it was the first step taken towards completion of the act. The advertisement presented a contest in which the man took part in and complied with all the requirements stated in the advertisement....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/23/2011 for the course BLW 201 taught by Professor Devience during the Fall '11 term at DePaul.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online