Leonard v. Pepsico
88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An advertisement does not constitute a binding offer unless it is clear, definite, explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation. An advertisement that a reasonable person would perceive as jest or puffery is not an offer that can be accepted to form a contract.
Facts:
- PepsiCo, Inc. (PepsiCo) conducted a 'Pepsi Stuff' promotional campaign where consumers could accumulate 'Pepsi Points' by purchasing Pepsi products and redeem them for merchandise listed in a catalog.
- The promotion allowed consumers to purchase additional Pepsi Points for ten cents each to supplement the points they collected.
- PepsiCo aired a television commercial showing a teenager redeeming points for a t-shirt, sunglasses, and a leather jacket.
- The commercial culminated with the teenager landing a Harrier Jet at his high school, with a subtitle indicating it cost '7,000,000 PEPSI POINTS'.
- The Pepsi Stuff catalog, which the commercial referenced for details, did not list a Harrier Jet as an available item.
- John D.R. Leonard saw the commercial and, concluding it was a valid offer, raised approximately $700,000 to purchase the necessary points.
- Leonard submitted an official order form, 15 original Pepsi Points, and a check for $700,008.50 to PepsiCo with a demand for one Harrier Jet.
- PepsiCo's fulfillment house rejected Leonard's submission, returned his check, and explained that the Harrier Jet was a fanciful element of a humorous commercial and not part of the promotion.
Procedural Posture:
- PepsiCo brought a declaratory judgment action against Leonard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a ruling that it had no obligation to provide a Harrier Jet.
- Leonard filed a separate lawsuit against PepsiCo in Florida state court, which PepsiCo then removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- The Florida federal court transferred Leonard's action to the Southern District of New York.
- After a series of jurisdictional and procedural motions, the parties waived prior issues and consented to the jurisdiction of the Southern District of New York.
- PepsiCo then moved for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a television commercial that humorously and fantastically depicts a Harrier Jet as a prize for collecting 7,000,000 points in a soft drink promotion constitute a legally enforceable offer to sell the jet?
Opinions:
Majority - Wood, J.
No, a television commercial that humorously depicts a Harrier Jet as a prize does not constitute a legally enforceable offer. The general rule is that an advertisement is merely an invitation to negotiate, not a binding offer. An exception exists for advertisements that are clear, definite, and explicit, leaving nothing for negotiation, as in Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store. This commercial does not meet that standard, as it reserved the details of the promotion to a separate catalog, which did not include the jet. Furthermore, the commercial is not a unilateral offer of a reward like in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball because it did not invite performance of a specific act but rather directed consumers to an order form to make an offer. Most importantly, an objective, reasonable person would not have considered the commercial a serious offer. The exaggerated adolescent fantasy of flying a military fighter jet to school, the improbable pilot, and the sheer absurdity of the proposition make it clear that the depiction was 'evidently done in jest.' Therefore, no valid offer existed for the plaintiff to accept.
Analysis:
This case serves as a quintessential modern illustration of fundamental contract law principles, particularly the objective theory of contract formation. It reinforces the high bar for an advertisement to be considered a legal offer, distinguishing mere 'puffery' or jokes from serious proposals. The court's application of the 'objective reasonable person' standard highlights that subjective belief, no matter how sincere, cannot create a contract where no reasonable person would perceive an offer. This decision provides a clear precedent that outlandish and humorous advertisements are not typically actionable as offers, thereby protecting advertisers from frivolous litigation based on hyperbolic claims that are not intended to be taken literally.
