Quick Summary
Morris Lefkowitz (plaintiff) attempted to purchase fur items from Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (defendant) based on their ‘first come, first served’ newspaper advertisements. The store refused sale citing an unadvertised rule that sales were limited to women.
The issue before the Supreme Court of Minnesota was whether these advertisements constituted binding offers. The court concluded that they did and affirmed Lefkowitz’s right to damages for the lapin stole as this offer was clear and left nothing open for negotiation.
Facts of the Case
Morris Lefkowitz (plaintiff) responded to advertisements by Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. (defendant) offering fur coats and a lapin stole for $1 each. The ads stated these sales were on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. Lefkowitz was the first to present himself to purchase the items on two separate occasions, ready to pay the advertised price.
However, the store refused to sell to him based on an undisclosed ‘house rule’ that the sale was intended for women only. Lefkowitz brought suit against the store for breach of contract.
The trial court awarded him damages for the lapin stole, which had a determinable value, but not for the fur coats, which had speculative value according to the advertisement.
Procedural History
- Lefkowitz sued Great Minneapolis Surplus Store for breach of contract in the Municipal Court of Minneapolis.
- The trial court awarded Lefkowitz damages for the lapin stole but not for the fur coats.
- The store appealed the decision.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether an advertisement offering items for sale at a specified price constitutes a binding offer that can be accepted by the first person to present themselves and offer to buy the items according to the terms of the advertisement.
Rule of Law
Advertisements that are clear, definite, and explicit, leaving nothing open for negotiation, can be construed as offers that, when accepted, form a binding contract. An offer may not be modified after acceptance with new conditions not contained in the original offer.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court reasoned that an advertisement could indeed constitute an offer if it was clear, definite, and explicit with no terms left open for negotiation. The court found that Lefkowitz’s actions met these criteria when he presented himself at the store ready to purchase the advertised items for the stated price, thereby accepting the offer and forming a binding contract.
The defendant’s attempt to introduce a ‘house rule’ after this acceptance was deemed unacceptable as it was not part of the original offer.
Furthermore, the court distinguished between general advertisements inviting offers and specific advertisements constituting offers themselves. In this case, the court held that the advertisements were specific offers that Lefkowitz accepted, obligating the store to sell him the lapin stole at the advertised price.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the trial court’s decision, awarding Lefkowitz damages for the lapin stole but not for the fur coats.
Key Takeaways
- An advertisement can be a binding offer if it is clear, definite, and explicit with no terms left open for negotiation.
- Once an offer is accepted by performance in accordance with its terms, it cannot be modified with additional conditions not included in the original offer.
- The court affirmed that Lefkowitz was entitled to damages for the lapin stole due to his acceptance of a clear and explicit offer.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What constitutes a legally binding offer in the context of advertisements?
A legally binding offer via advertisement must be clear, definite, explicit, and leave no room for negotiation. It should specify the item or service offered, the price, and any conditions of acceptance, distinct from an invitation to treat.
- For example: A flyer stating ‘Laptop on sale for $299 on March 10th, first 10 customers only’ creates a specific offer that could result in a contract when acted upon by customers.
Can additional terms be introduced after acceptance of an offer?
Once an offer is accepted without condition, neither party can unilaterally introduce new terms. The acceptance of the offer creates a binding agreement based on the terms present at the time of acceptance.
- For example: If a gym membership is sold at a fixed price with no initiation fee and someone signs up under those terms, the gym cannot later impose an initiation fee upon that member.
What differentiates a 'first come, first served' sales advertisement from an invitation to negotiate?
A ‘first come, first served’ advertisement indicates that the item is available to whoever arrives first and complies with any specified conditions. It implies commitment and readiness to sell, as opposed to an invitation to negotiate which calls for interested parties to make offers or discuss terms.
- For example: A sign at a bakery offering ‘Fresh bread $2/loaf for the first 50 customers today’ is significantly different from saying ‘Make an offer on our fresh bread.’
References
Was this case brief helpful?