Case Brief- BUS LAW 305
odt
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Phoenix *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
305
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
odt
Pages
5
Uploaded by LuisS86
Case Brief
Jasmina Sprayberry
College of Adult and Graduate Studies, Colorado Christian University
LAW-305A-ON35: Foundations of Business Law
Dr. Kenneth Heer
12/10/2023
Case Brief
88 F.Supp.2d 116 (1999)
John D.R. LEONARD, Plaintiff,
v.
PEPSICO., INC., Defendant
1. Background
This legal case originated from a promotional advertising initiative conducted by the defendant,
PEPSICO. Under this promotional campaign, consumers could acquire PEPSI-themed items by
accumulating points through the purchase and consumption of the product. In the commercial, a student
is depicted arriving at school in a Harrier Jet, which was stated to cost 7,000,000 Pepsi Points.
However, when the plaintiff attempted to obtain the jet by gathering and purchasing the required points,
the defendant refused to provide it.
Key Facts
A. PepsiCo ran a promotion called "Pepsi Stuff," encouraging consumers to collect points for
merchandise.
B. A commercial featured a Harrier Jet as an example, with a cost of 7,000,000 Pepsi Points.
C. John Leonard, inspired by the ad, tried to obtain a Harrier Jet, raising $700,000 and submitting an
order form with 15 points.
D. PepsiCo rejected the request, stating the Harrier Jet was not part of the Pepsi Stuff collection and
was a humorous ad element.
3.Main Legal Issue(s):
Whether the commercial constituted a legally binding offer.
Whether Mr. Leonard's submission formed a valid offer, creating a contractual obligation.
4.Holding.
Court’s Decision: Court’s Decision: Yes in favor of PepsiCO
The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of PepsiCo, agreeing with Judge Wood's opinion.
In the case of Leonard v. PepsiCo, the court ruled in favor of PepsiCo. The court's decision was in
support of the summary judgment granted by the lower court. The appellate court, in a per curiam
opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision. This means that PepsiCo won the case at both the trial
level and on appeal. The court concluded that there was no legally binding offer in the advertisement
for the Harrier Jet and, therefore, PepsiCo was not obligated to fulfill Mr. Leonard's request for the jet.
5.
Court Reasoning
The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of PepsiCo, agreeing with Judge Wood's opinion.
Court’s Rationale (Answering Case Questions):
When does the court think an offer was made?
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
The court held that an advertisement generally doesn't constitute an offer. In this case, an exception
would be if the ad is "clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation." The court
found that the Harrier Jet commercial was merely an advertisement and not a definite offer.
Why is whether the ad is funny an important issue?
The court addressed Mr. Leonard's insistence that the commercial appeared to be a serious offer. To
counter this argument, the court explained why the commercial was funny, characterizing it as "zany
humor." This was important to emphasize that the commercial was not meant to be taken seriously but
as a humorous promotion.
Will Mr. Leonard get his Harrier jet? Why or why not?
No, Mr. Leonard will not get the Harrier Jet. The court ruled that the commercial was not a clear and
definite offer but a humorous advertisement. As there was no enforceable contract until PepsiCo
accepted the order form and cashed the check, and since PepsiCo rejected the submission, no contract
was formed.
This case illustrates the importance of clarity in advertisements for forming a legally binding offer and
emphasizes the significance of context, even humor, in interpreting such advertisements.
Resources
Ferrari, V. (2023, June 5). “
PEPSI, WHERE’S MY JET?” A look at the Leonard v. Pepsico case behind
the new Netflix limited series
. Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas.
https://www.hoaglandlongo.com/blog/pepsi-wheres-my-jet-a-look-at-the-leonard-v-pepsico-case-
behind-the-new-netflix-limited-series
Jennings, M. (2016). Foundations of the legal environment (3rd ed.).