Reading Cases Unit 3 Quiz 2
[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.9.4″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.9.4″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.9.4″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.9.4″ _module_preset=”default”]
You are reading a case called Leonardo v. Pepsico. In that case, a beverage company ran an advertisement in which it jokingly offered a fighter jet to customers who acquired a certain number of “points” by drinking its products. Plaintiff tried to claim the fighter jet. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the beverage company, holding that the advertisement was only a joke and not an offer to provide a fighter jet. The court explained that there was no contract requiring the company to provide the jet, nor was the fighter jet a reward that plaintiff could claim.
Answer the following questions please.
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
Quiz Summary
0 of 15 Questions completed
Questions:
Information
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You must first complete the following:
Results
Results
0 of 15 Questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 point(s), (0)
Earned Point(s): 0 of 0, (0)
0 Essay(s) Pending (Possible Point(s): 0)
Categories
- Not categorized 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Current
- Review
- Answered
- Correct
- Incorrect
- Question 1 of 15
1. Question
Plaintiff brought this action seeking, among other things, specific performance of an alleged offer of a Harrier Jet, featured in a television advertisement for defendant’s “Pepsi Stuff” promotion. Defendant has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion is granted
Which of the following best describes
CorrectIncorrect - Question 2 of 15
2. Question
This case arises out of a promotional campaign conducted by defendant, the producer and distributor of the soft drinks Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.
What of the following best describes what the judge is writing?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 3 of 15
3. Question
On or about March 27, 1996, plaintiff submitted an Order Form, fifteen original Pepsi Points, and a check for $700,008.50. Plaintiff appears to have been represented by counsel at the time he mailed his check; the check is drawn on an account of plaintiff’s first set of attorneys. At the bottom of the Order Form, plaintiff wrote in “1 Harrier Jet” in the “Item” column and “7,000,000” in the “Total Points” column. In a letter accompanying his submission, plaintiff stated that the check was to purchase additional Pepsi Points “expressly for obtaining a new Harrier jet as advertised in your Pepsi Stuff commercial.”
Which of the following best describes what the judge is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 4 of 15
4. Question
“Other questions cannot be resolved until after the Court determines whether defendant’s commercial was an offer or not.”
Which of the following best describes what the Court is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 5 of 15
5. Question
“The general rule is that an advertisement does not constitute an offer. The Restatement (Second) of Contracts explains that: ‘Advertisements of goods by display, sign, handbill, newspaper, radio or television are not ordinarily intended or understood as offers to sell.’”
Which of the following best describes what the Court is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 6 of 15
6. Question
” Similarly, a leading treatise notes that: ‘It is quite possible to make a definite and operative offer to buy or sell goods by advertisement, in a newspaper, by a handbill, a catalog or circular or on a placard in a store window. It is not customary to do this, however; and the presumption is the other way. … Such advertisements are understood to be mere requests to consider and examine and negotiate; and no one can reasonably regard them as otherwise unless the circumstances are exceptional and the words used are very plain and clear.’”
Which of the following best describes what the Court is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 7 of 15
7. Question
“An advertisement is not transformed into an enforceable offer merely by a potential offeree’s expression of willingness to accept the offer through, among other means, completion of an order form. In Mesaros v. United States, 845 F.2d 1576 (Fed.Cir.1988), for example, the plaintiffs sued the United States Mint for failure to deliver a number of Statue of Liberty commemorative coins that they had ordered. When demand for the coins proved unexpectedly robust, a number of individuals who had sent in their orders in a timely fashion were left empty- handed. See id. at 1578–80.”
Which of the following best describes what the Court is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 8 of 15
8. Question
“Under the [principles of Mesaros v. United States], [plaintiff Leonard]’s letter of March 27, 1996 [to defendant Pepsico], with the Order Form and the appropriate number of Pepsi Points, constituted the offer. There would be no enforceable contract until defendant [Pepsico] accepted the Order Form and cashed the check.”
Which of the following best describes what the Court is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 9 of 15
9. Question
“The exception to the rule that advertisements do not create any power of acceptance in potential offerees is where the advertisement is ‘clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation,’ in that circumstance, ‘it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract.’ Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, 251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689, 691 (1957).
Which of the following best describes what the Court is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 10 of 15
10. Question
“In Lefkowitz, defendant had published a newspaper announcement stating: “Saturday 9 AM Sharp, 3 Brand New Fur Coats, Worth to $100.00, First Come First Served $1 Each.” Id. at 690. Mr. Morris Lefkowitz arrived at the store, dollar in hand, but was informed that under defendant’s “house rules,” the offer was open to ladies, but not gentlemen. See id. The court ruled that because plaintiff had fulfilled all of the terms of the advertisement and the advertisement was specific and left nothing open for negotiation, a contract had been formed.”
Which of the following best describes what the Court is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 11 of 15
11. Question
“The present case is distinguishable from Lefkowitz. First, the commercial cannot be regarded in itself as sufficiently definite, because it specifically reserved the details of the offer to a separate writing, the Catalog. The commercial itself made no mention of the steps a potential offeree would be required to take to accept the alleged offer of a Harrier Jet. The advertisement in Lefkowitz, in contrast, ‘identified the person who could accept.’”
Which of the following best describes what the Court is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 12 of 15
12. Question
“In evaluating the commercial, the Court must not consider defendant’s subjective intent in making the commercial, or plaintiff’s subjective view of what the commercial offered, but what an objective, reasonable person would have understood the commercial to convey. See Kay–R Elec. Corp. v. Stone & Webster Constr. Co., 23 F.3d 55, 57 (2d Cir.1994) (“[W]e are not concerned with what was going through the heads of the parties at the time [of the alleged contract]. Rather, we are talking about the objective principles of contract law.”); Mesaros, 845 F.2d at 1581 (“A basic rule of contracts holds that whether an offer has been made depends on the objective reasonableness of the alleged offeree’s belief that the advertisement or solicitation was intended as an offer.”)”
Which of the following best describes what the Court is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 13 of 15
13. Question
“An obvious joke, of course, would not give rise to a contract. See, e.g., Graves v. Northern N.Y. Pub. Co., 260 A.D. 900, 22 N.Y.S.2d 537 (1940) (dismissing claim to offer of $1000, which appeared in the “joke column” of the newspaper, to any person who could provide a commonly available phone number). On the other hand, if there is no indication that the offer is “evidently in jest,” and that an objective, reasonable person would find that the offer was serious, then there may be a valid offer. See Barnes, 549 P.2d at 1155 (“[I]f the jest is not apparent and a reasonable hearer would believe that an offer was being made, then the speaker risks the formation of a contract which was not intended.”)
Which of the following best describes what the Court is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 14 of 15
14. Question
“[T]he humor of the promotional campaign was tongue in cheek. Humor is not limited to what Justice Cardozo called “[t]he rough and boisterous joke … [that] evokes its own guffaws.” Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co., 250 N.Y. 479, 483, 166 N.E. 173, 174 (1929). In light of the obvious absurdity of the commercial, the Court rejects plaintiff’s argument that the commercial was not clearly in jest.”
Which of the following best describes what the Court is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 15 of 15
15. Question
“In sum, there are three reasons why plaintiff’s demand cannot prevail as a matter of law. First, the commercial was merely an advertisement, not a unilateral offer. Second, the tongue-in-cheek attitude of the commercial would not cause a reasonable person to conclude that a soft drink company would be giving away fighter planes as part of a promotion. Third, there is no writing between the parties sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”
Which of the following best describes what the Court is writing here?
CorrectIncorrect