{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Lefkowitz vs Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Inc

Lefkowitz vs Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Inc - claimed...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Lefkowitz vs Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Inc. Facts: An advertisement for a clear, definite, and explicit sale price for a specific quantity at a store was placed in the newspapers. A man followed all the claims on the ad such as, the time of trade, the quantity, the price, and place of trade. The store didn’t sell the man the product according to the advertisement because it was relevant to women. Issue/ Dispute: The issue is whether or not a contract was formed. The stores case was that the advertisement was only an invitation to enter into an agreement. The man that wanted to purchase the items
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: claimed that it was an agreement because the store stated an exact price, at an exact location with an exact time of the transaction. Decision Because there was a clear and definite time, place and price of the transaction, the court held that an agreement was formed. The advertisement required that the first customer to walk in would be able to purchase the item for one dollar. The agreement was official when the man took the first step into completion of the act, which was walking into the store....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online