Lefkowitz v. Minneapolis - The 2 nd time he also refused to...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus store 251 Minn. 188 (1957) Fact: Procedural Facts: Operative Facts: A surplus store advertised in a paper “ Saturday 9 A.M. Sharp 3 Brand New fur Coats Worth to $100.00 First Come First Served $1 Each.” A week later they advertised in the same paper “Saturday 9 A.M. 2 Brand New Pastel Mink 3- Skin Scarfs Selling for $89.50 out they go Saturday. Each … $1.00 1 Black Lapin Stole Beautiful, worth $139.50 … $1.00 First Come First Served” A man came to purchase the first item, going to the proper register at the proper time, and the seller refused to sell the fur Coat, stating that their “house rules” that they only sold it to women.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: The 2 nd time he also refused to sell the Black Lapin Stole, even after knowing the house rules. Issue: Whether the Advertisements were unilateral offers that could have been revoke at any time. Rule: If there is sufficient terms, then there is an offer. Rational: The advertisement in the newspaper had a define time, description, price, quantity, and person (first come first served). Holding: The court for the remedy, gave Lefkowitz $139.50 - $1 because the contract was there and was breached. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course CONTRACTS 111 taught by Professor Dellinger during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online