Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.
88 F. Supp. 2d 116 · U.S. District Court · 1999
Facts
PepsiCo launched a "Pepsi Stuff" promotion, encouraging consumers to collect Pepsi Points from product packages to redeem for merchandise. A television commercial for the promotion depicted a teenager acquiring various items, culminating in a Harrier Jet landing at a school with the text "HARRIER FIGHTER 7,000,000 PEPSI POINTS." Plaintiff, John Leonard, saw the commercial and believed it to be a serious offer for the jet. He consulted the Pepsi Stuff Catalog, which did not list the Harrier Jet, but noted that additional points could be purchased for ten cents each. Leonard raised approximately $700,000 and submitted an order form with 15 original Pepsi Points and a check for $700,008.50, explicitly requesting a Harrier Jet. PepsiCo rejected his submission, explaining that the jet was not part of the promotion and the commercial was a humorous advertisement.
Procedural history
Plaintiff Leonard brought this action seeking specific performance of an alleged offer. The litigation initially involved two lawsuits: a declaratory judgment action filed by PepsiCo in this district and an action filed by Leonard in Florida state court, which was subsequently transferred to this court. After various jurisdictional disputes and an order for Leonard to pay attorneys' fees for litigating in an improper forum, the parties stipulated to dismiss appeals and proceed with litigation in this court. PepsiCo then moved for summary judgment.
Issue
The central legal question is whether PepsiCo's television commercial constituted a legally binding offer for a Harrier Jet, acceptance of which would form a contract.
Holding
The court held that the commercial was not a legally binding offer, and therefore, no contract was formed between the parties. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.
Rule
Advertisements are generally not offers but invitations to negotiate, unless they are clear, definite, explicit, and leave nothing open for negotiation. Courts apply an objective, reasonable person standard to determine if an advertisement constitutes an offer, excluding acts evidently done in jest or without intent to create legal relations. The commercial's exaggerated claims, improbable pilot, unrealistic fantasy, and disproportionate cost indicated it was mere puffery and humor. Additionally, a contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more is unenforceable without a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought, which was absent here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.