O'KEEFE v. Lee Calan Imports, Inc.
43 A.L.R. 3d 1097, 128 Ill. App. 2d 410, 262 N.E.2d 758 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In the absence of special circumstances, a newspaper advertisement is not a binding offer but an invitation to make an offer, especially when it contains an erroneous price through no fault of the advertiser.
Facts:
- The defendant instructed the Chicago Sun-Times to advertise a 1964 Volvo Station Wagon for sale at a price of $1,795.
- Due to an error by the newspaper, and through no fault of the defendant, the advertisement listed the price as $1,095.
- Christopher D. O'Brien saw the advertisement with the erroneous price.
- O'Brien went to the defendant's place of business, examined the automobile, and stated that he wished to purchase it for the advertised price of $1,095.
- One of the defendant's salesmen initially agreed to the sale at $1,095 but then refused to sell the car for the incorrect price.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher D. O’Brien filed a lawsuit against the defendant for breach of contract in the Circuit Court.
- After O'Brien's death, the administrator of his estate was substituted as the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff and defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the trial court.
- The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant to the appellate court.
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 newspaper advertisement that contains an erroneous purchase price, through the fault of the newspaper and not the advertiser, constitute a binding offer that can be accepted to form a contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice McNamara
No. A newspaper advertisement containing an erroneous price due to the newspaper's error does not constitute a binding offer; it is merely an invitation to make an offer. The general presumption is that advertisements are invitations to negotiate and consider, not operative offers, unless the circumstances are exceptional and the language is very plain and clear. Here, there was no meeting of the minds or mutual assent, as the advertisement's terms were incomplete and indefinite, lacking material details such as equipment or warranties. This case is distinguishable from precedents like Lefkowitz, where the advertisement was deliberately misleading rather than an error, and Johnson, where the ad called for a specific performance by the customer, which constituted acceptance. As the defendant was not at fault for the error and the ad did not call for any specific performance by O'Brien, it was not a valid offer.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional common law principle that advertisements are generally considered invitations to treat, not binding offers. It provides a safeguard for advertisers against typographical errors made by third-party publishers, clarifying that such mistakes do not create contractual liability. The ruling emphasizes that for an advertisement to be an offer, it must demonstrate clear intent and include definite terms, leaving no material aspects open for negotiation. This precedent reinforces the high bar an advertisement must clear to be elevated from a mere solicitation to a legally enforceable offer.
