Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Inc. Case Brief
Facts
The defendant published an advertisement in a Minneapolis newspaper on two different occasions. On the first occasion, the defendant offered 3 brand new fur coats worth $100.00 to be sold at $1 on a first come first serve basis. On the second occasion, the defendant offered 2 brand new pastel mink 3-skin scarfs worth $89.50 with the same terms of the first come first serve basis. Following the publication, the plaintiff on both occasions as records showed, was the first to present himself at the defendant’s store in bid to purchase the offered goods at $1 as it had been specified in the newspaper advertisement. On both occasions, the defendant declined selling the goods to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant for failing to perform his duty under the contract which is; selling the said goods to him.
Contentions of the parties
The plaintiff sued the defendant for nonperformance since the plaintiff accepted an offer that was advertised in a newspaper by complying with the first come first serve rule and he was ready to purchase the said goods at the stated price which is a dollar.
The defendant on the other hand claims that a newspaper advertisement amounts to a unilateral contract that can be withdrawn anytime without a notice. He relied on the authority that held that, if one advertises certain quantity or quality of a said product that advertisement only becomes an offer after the other party signifies his acceptance by notifying the other that he will take a certain quantity of them. The defendant further stated that the contract applied to women only on the basis of ‘the house rule’ therefore the sale was not applicable to men. He further argued that on the second occasion, the plaintiff already knew about the ‘house rule’
Issue
The issue before the court is as to whether the newspaper advertisement constituted an offer and consequently if it did, then the second question is as to whether the plaintiff’s conduct amounted to an acceptance of the said offer.
Decision
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff since it deemed the advertisement an offer made and the conduct of the plaintiff as an acceptance. Therefore, the defendant had an obligation to perform his end of that contract. The court awarded the plaintiff a sum of $ 138.50 as damages for breach of contract.
Legal reasoning
The court observed that a newspaper advertisement is an offer rather than an invitation to make an offer depending on the circumstances. The newspaper advertisement was found to be definite and unambiguous and did not provide any statement that would invite a negotiation. The conduct of the plaintiff of being the first person to present himself in the defendants store was esteemed an acceptance of an offer made. Both the defendant and the plaintiff were legally bound by the terms of the contract and the breach of that contract thereof would result to a legal redress.
The ‘house rule’ in this matter, as argued by the defendant would not be admitted by the court due to the preciseness of the terms of the said contract which did not contain that disclaimer as a ground of refusal to sell the goods offered.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.