A short essay question for business law course

User Generated

Jnat722

Business Finance

Description

the answer should be 1-2 paragraph long. It's a lower level business law course, so you do not need to make the answer too complicated. The picture i upload is the material and the question.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. John D.R. LEONARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEPSICO, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Docket No. 99-9032 Decided: April 17, 2000 Before: FEINBERG, JACOBS and HALL,* Circuit Judges.David E. Nachman, New York, N.Y. (David N. Ellenhorn, Emily Stern, Solomon, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Fischer & Sharp, New York, N.Y. on the brief) for Plaintiff-Appellant. Charles Ossola, New York, N.Y.(Arnold & Porter, Washington D.C., and Arent, Fox, Kitner, Plotkin & Kahn, New York, N.Y. on the brief) for Defendant-Appellee. In 1995, defendant-appellee Pepsico, Inc. conducted a promotion in which it offered merchandise in exchange for "points" earned by purchasing Pepsi Cola. A television commercial aired by Pepsico depicted a teenager gloating over various items of merchandise earned by Pepsi points, and culminated in the teenager arriving at high school in a Harrier Jet, a fighter aircraft of the United States Marine Corps. For each item of merchandise sported by the teenager (a T shirt, a jacket, sunglasses), the ad noted the number of Pepsi points needed to get it. When the teenager is shown in the jet, the ad prices it as 7 million points. Plaintiff-appellant John D.R. Leonard alleges that the ad was an offer, that he accepted the offer by tendering the equivalent of 7 million points, and that Pepsico has breached its contract to deliver the Harrier jet. Pepsico characterizes the use of the Harrier jet in the ad as a hyperbolic joke (“zany humor"), cites the ad's reference to offering details contained in the promotional catalog (which contains no Harrier fighter plane), and argues that no objective person would construe the ad as an offer for the Harrier jet. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Wood, J.) agreed with Pepsico and granted its motion for summary judgment on the grounds (1) that the commercial did not amount to an offer of goods; (2) that no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers a Harrier Jet; and (3) that the alleged contract could not satisfy the New York statute of frauds. Was there an agreement?
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW

1

Business Law
Institution Affiliation
Date:

BUSINESS LAW

2
Promotion and Advertisement Law

The federal trade commission has set of rules and regulations on marketing and
advertising. The main purpose of the advertisement and marketing regulations is to ensure that
companies are fair and truthful with whatever they advertise. The rules also state that an
adverti...


Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags