 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Undo revision 40543 by Lost Student (talk)) Tag: Undo |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|appealed_from=Municipal Court of Minneapolis | |appealed_from=Municipal Court of Minneapolis | ||
|case_treatment= | |case_treatment=No | ||
|overturned= | |overturned= | ||
|partially_overturned= | |||
|reaffirmed= | |||
|questioned= | |||
|criticized= | |||
|distinguished= | |||
|cited= | |||
|followed= | |||
|related= | |||
|facts=Defendant put ad in the newspaper two successive weeks that it would sell a fur coat and other fur items to the first comer at the store at 9 a.m. the following Saturday for a price of $1. One item was said to be worth $139.50. Plaintiff went each Saturday and was the first person there, ready and willing to pay the $1. Each time he was told that the sale was for women only. | |facts=Defendant put ad in the newspaper two successive weeks that it would sell a fur coat and other fur items to the first comer at the store at 9 a.m. the following Saturday for a price of $1. One item was said to be worth $139.50. Plaintiff went each Saturday and was the first person there, ready and willing to pay the $1. Each time he was told that the sale was for women only. | ||
|procedural_history=Municipal court of Minneapolis awarded Plaintiff $138.50 and denied motion by Defendant for amended findings or new trial. | |procedural_history=Municipal court of Minneapolis awarded Plaintiff $138.50 and denied motion by Defendant for amended findings or new trial. | ||
Revision as of 00:26, September 12, 2020
| Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store | |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota |
|---|---|
| Citation | 86 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1957) |
| Date decided | December 20, 1957 |
| Appealed from | Municipal Court of Minneapolis |
| Case Opinions | |
| written by Murphy | |
Facts
Defendant put ad in the newspaper two successive weeks that it would sell a fur coat and other fur items to the first comer at the store at 9 a.m. the following Saturday for a price of $1. One item was said to be worth $139.50. Plaintiff went each Saturday and was the first person there, ready and willing to pay the $1. Each time he was told that the sale was for women only.
Procedural History
Municipal court of Minneapolis awarded Plaintiff $138.50 and denied motion by Defendant for amended findings or new trial.
Issues
Did the ad constitute an offer?
Arguments
Defendant argued that the ad was a "unilateral offer," so it could be rescinded at any time. Ads were simply an invitation for someone to come in and offer to buy the items, and the seller could then accept the offer, reject it, or modify the price.
Holding
Ad was an offer.
Judgment
Affirmed
Reasons
The ad was clear, definite, and left nothing open for negotiation. Plaintiff fulfilled all requirements of the ad, so should have been given what was promised. The ad did not state the restriction to women only, so the "contract" between the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot be changed after the acceptance of the offer.
