Ch4 - Supplemental Exercise - Analogizing and Distinguishing

docx

School

Mitchell Hamline School of Law *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1006

Subject

Economics

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by ProfJellyfish19142

Report
Chapter 4 Making an Offer For use with Contracts: A Modern Coursebook by Ben Templin & David H. Spratt. (c) 2023 Ben Templin & David H. Spratt This file may not be copied or distributed by students, professors, or others without express written permission and is only to be used by students and professors who are enrolled in or teaching a course where this book is assigned as a text. Supplemental Exercise: ANALOGIZING AND DISTINGUISHING CASES LEARNING OBJECTIVE This exercise has the following objectives: (1) synthesize the cases concerning an offer and apply the rules to a set of facts based on a real-world advertisement, and (2) develop your ability to analogize and distinguish facts from precedent. INSTRUCTIONS Step 1: The exercise asks you to analogize and distinguish the cases to determine if an advertisement is an offer. For purposes of this exercise, consider the following as controlling precedent for your jurisdiction: (1) Lonergan v. Scolnick , (2) Leonard v. Pepsico and (3) Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store. All the relevant case facts and reasoning that you will need for the Lefkowitz case are contained in Leonard v. Pepsico opinion. For the Lonergan case, focus only on whether the advertisement was an offer. Fill out the chart with a few brief words that show the important facts that prove or disprove each of the elements. Also, include the holding for each case as to whether the advertisement was an offer. Case Comparison Chart: Was the advertisement discussed in the case an offer? Intent to enter a bargain Certain and definite terms Identified person or persons Reasonably conclude that acceptance forms contract Holding Lonergan v. Scolnick Leonard v. Pepsico Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Ikea Advertisement
Step 2: The IKEA advertisement below ran in Australian newspapers on February 14, 2013. Assume that the essentially the same advertisement ran in United States newspapers on February 14, 2013. The only differences were that the year was changed to the current year and the advertisement was aimed at United States customers rather than Australian customers. Is Ikea serious? Would you analogize or distinguish Leonard v. Pepsico ? If Ikea is serious, has Ikea made an offer or an invitation to deal? Analogize or distinguish the cases. Are these facts more like the facts in Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store or Lonergan v. Scolnick ? Is there consideration for Ikea’s promise to give a free crib?
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help