Leonard V. Pepsico.
854 words 4 pagesCase Review/IRAC
John D.R. Leonard, Plaintiff v. Pepsico, Inc., Defendant
88 F.Supp.2d 116 (1999)
Pepsico conducted a test of a new promotion in the Pacific Northwest from October 1995 to March 1996 where plaintiff saw the advertisement and contended that it offered a Harrier Jet. Through acquaintances, plaintiff raised $700,000, and wrote a check to Pepsi along with 15 pepsi points and a filled out order form for 7,000,000 additional Pepsi points. Defendant’s fulfillment house rejected plaintiff’s submission. Plaintiff’s counsel responded on May 14th, 1996 forewarning that they will file an appropriate action if they do not fulfill their offer of a Harrier Jet.
This case went …show more content…
*In light of the obvious absurdity of the commercial, the Court rejects plaintiff’s argument that the commercial was not clearly in jest.
The alleged contract does not meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, thus plaintiff has no claim for breach of contract or specific performance.
In sum, there are three reasons why plaintiff’s demand cannot prevail as a matter of law. First, the commercial was merely an advertisement, not a unilateral offer. Second, the tongue-in-check attitude of the commercial would not cause a reasonable person to conclude that a soft drink company would be giving away fighter plans as part of a promotion. Third, there is no writing between parties sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close these cases. Any pending motions are moot.
Whether the television commercial constituted an offer of a Harrier Jet.
The Restatement (second) of contracts, which concluded that the advertisement wasn’t an actual offer. The Statute of Fraud, which concluded that the plaintiff had no genuine issues of material to be tried.
In sum, there are three reasons why plaintiff’s demand cannot prevail as a matter of law. First, the commercial was merely an advertisement, not a unilateral offer. Second, the tongue-in-check attitude of the commercial would not cause a reasonable person to conclude that a soft drink