Yes. A customer can force the dealer to honor the deal. The court decided that the ad was a binding offer because it was designed to trick people. It doesn't matter what the dealer secretly intended. What matters is what a normal person reading the ad would think it meant. The big, bold promise of $3,000 for a trade-in was clearly meant to lure people in (a 'bait and switch'), and a company can't use tiny, hidden print to get out of a promise it intentionally made people believe.

Yes, the ad was like a promise because it was very clear about the trade-in deal, and Izadi accepted this offer by trying to buy the truck under those terms. We think this for two reasons. First, when you look at the whole ad, the big print is more important than the tiny print that says something different. Second, if a store tries to trick people with its ad, we might make them stick to what the ad seems to promise. The court agrees with Izadi on the broken promise and misleading ad claims but not on the claim that he was tricked on purpose, as there was no proof he lost money because of it.

Yes. A newspaper advertisement containing prominent but misleading terms can constitute a binding offer. The court held that the complaint stated a cause of action for breach of contract because an objective reading of the advertisement could lead a reasonable person to believe Machado was offering $3,000 for any trade-in towards the purchase of the Ford Ranger. The court reasoned that under the objective theory of contracts, it does not matter what Machado subjectively intended; what matters is the meaning a reasonable person would attach to the words used. The court further held that a binding offer can be implied from deliberately misleading 'bait and switch' advertising, where the advertiser purposely misleads the customer into believing an offer exists. In such cases, the advertiser cannot deny the meaning it intentionally conveyed.

Yes. The advertisement, when read as a whole and considering its prominent claims, constituted a binding offer which Izadi accepted, forming a contract. We hold this on two grounds. First, an objective reading of the ad might disregard both the superfine print and apparent qualification as to the value of the trade-in, as contradictory to the far more prominent thrust of the advertisement. The real intention, as disclosed by a fair consideration of all parts of a contract, should control the meaning given to mere words or particular provisions. Second, a binding offer may be implied from the very fact that deliberately misleading advertising intentionally leads the reader to the conclusion that one exists. The dealer can hardly deny that it did not mean what it purposely misled its customer into believing. The court reverses the dismissal of the breach of contract and misleading advertising claims but affirms the dismissal of the fraud claim because no specific damages were alleged. We hold that the complaint properly alleged claims for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the statutory prohibition against misleading advertising.

Izadi v. MacHado (Gus) Ford, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot