Lefkowitz vs Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Inc Order Instructions: Section I – Brief the following case:
LEFKOWITZ v. GREAT MINNEAPOLIS SURPLUS STORE, INC. 86 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1957). (one page)
Section II – Summary Critique Section II of this assignment you are to present a summary critique of the court ruling in the case.
Here, you are to discuss your opinion regarding the court’s decision. You may agree or disagree. Whatever your position on the case; be sure that you support your thoughts and ideas with adequate research as evidenced by in-text citation in accordance with APA standards.
Lefkowitz vs Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Inc Sample Answer
Section1
This case involves Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. is a US contract case. In addition, it revolves around an offer and the invitation to treat.
Facts
This case is an appeal of the Minneapolis court rejecting Great Minneapolis Surplus Store’s motion to review the findings of the factor another trial. In this regards, Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, the defendant published ads in the newspaper about the sale of skin scarfs, lapin stole and fur coats. According to the newspaper ads, products were to be sold based on the first come basis, available quantity or every product, and the price of each item. Mr. Lefkowitz, the plaintiff, was the first client to make the offer based on the advertisement terms. However, Great Minneapolis Surplus Store refused to sell the products to the plaintiff and indicated to him that based on the “house rules” and the offer targeted female customers. This was based on the fact that the plaintiff had the right to make his offer based on Great Minneapolis Surplus Store since he adhered to the advert terms while offering the stipulated selling price (Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 1957).
Lefkowitz vs Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Inc and the Judgment
The court determined that the newspaper ad cannot be considered as the offer laws; rather it counted as a type of unilateral pledge. The court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor and he was compensated for the damages similar to those in the newspaper ad for lapin stole minus USD 1 selling price (Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 1957). He has compensated a total of USD 138.50 due to a violation of contract. Additionally, the court denied the allegations on the fur coat, indicating that the price was extremely speculative while Great Minneapolis Surplus Store appealed.
Section 11
The court ruled that the newspaper ad could be an offer in certain circumstances, especially when the action required to accept it are clear, definite and leaves nothing to negotiate. Much as an offer can be changed, the defendant cannot stipulate new conditions such as “house rule” They were not indicated in the newspaper ads. In addition, when buying and selling fall under an offer, its acceptance forms a contract as well as the obligation for the offeror to carry out. Nonetheless, acceptance can be carried out in any way and communicated via any channel, this is informed by common law directives concerning the acceptance of contracts for the effective sale of merchandise. Essentially, an obligation from the newspaper ad can be binding to the public as long as it is clear, definite and leaves no elements to negotiate (Mann & Roberts, 2015). While it was clear in the ad that respondents would be served based on the first come basis, Lefkowitz arrived in response to the ad, which indicates that he had accepted the offer. For that reason, Great Minneapolis Surplus Store had the obligation to sell the products in the ad to Lefkowitz.
Whereas the court’s determination is based on the fact that newspaper ad targets the larger public, they can be acceptable to any individual that meets the condition of an offer. Modification of an offer should be communicated to the offeree, however with a general offer; publicizing the cancelation is considered adequate revocation.
Moreover, the court determined Great Minneapolis Surplus Store sale of lapin fur was explicit, clear and definite. Again, the offer was altered based on house rule, and the defendant had the right to, but after acceptance, he does have any right to come up with new conditions not indicated in the advertised offer (Mann & Roberts, 2011). Moreover, where the merchandise differs based on quantity, they require further identification for the ad to be considered as an offer. In essence, important conditions of the offer were not used to address such errors. This could be due to the fact that the ad targeted the larger public, as such, there was no need for the court to infer conditions from previous transactions. The court did not explain the manner in which house rule was applicable to the issues in the case. As a matter of act, the plaintiff adhered to all the conditions advertised in the offer, but when he went to purchase the merchandise he was told of house rule that indicated that the ad was meant for female customers. The house rule could simply be inferred to other defendant’s offers. Additionally, the plaintiff fully understood that the second and had alterations that would make it unwarranted. The lack of published changes before accepting the offer could be immaterial according to the plaintiff’s understanding of the changes (Jenkins, 2014).
While the court’s ruling was based on legal impact of the newspaper ad to sell goods, it was not an offer targeting a certain individual rather the general public. Furthermore, the court’s determination was fair in stating that there was the conduct of the defendant and plaintiff an adequate mutuality of responsibility. Therefore, it can effectively be considered as a unilateral offer without consideration can be withdrawn at any time and with no notice. This offer can be withdrawn prior to acceptance because by nature many offers are unilaterally created by one of the parties of the contract, hence, the ruling made is unclear. The ruling rejected Lefkowitz’s claims for the cost of coats because it was not only speculative but also not certain, however, the only proof was of the price was the newspaper ad. Owing to the fact that there would be a variety of goods within this product line, and because the fur type was not indicated, the items on offer were inadequately identified. Lefkowitz’s claim to the second and was permitted since there was no ambiguity with respect to cost, quantity, and identity among others. These forms of ads have been recognized as invitation for an offer of selling merchandise based on the stated conditions can either be accepted or rejected and thus they do become contracts till acceptable by the selling party; and till the contract is formed, a seller can alter or even cancel the cost or conditions (Jenkins, 2014).
Though the ruling that there was a genuine acceptance is unfounded, the determination that there an offer is sound (Mann & Roberts, 2015). Assuming that the ad’s conditions were uncertain such as quantity, cost or other important details it is a clear identification that the defendant was not interested in creating a contract. On the contrary, that ad had all the necessary details of the goods; therefore the court could have been free in finding an appropriate offer. This case may depict a liberal pattern on the court’s side in recognizing that a newspaper ad may be an offer. In most cases, such as are preferred by advertisers to attract buyers, without the obligation to perform. Although the ad does not fall under an offer, the offeror can nonetheless run away from being bound and able to substantiate there some mistakes in the ad. But it worth noting that this is not a common issue.
Some courts consider newspaper ads as a genuine offer, and others see them as basically invitation to create offers. Nevertheless, they are not conflicting the formation is somewhat that these ads are meant to invite respondents into a bargain. Irrespective, the matter significantly depends on conditions states, as such, no element should be overlooked (Mann & Roberts, 2011).
By and large, the court’s decision was fair. This is because the defendant failed to indicate that the offer targeted women respondents. Instead, it indicated the number of items available and their selling price and on the first come basis.
Lefkowitz vs Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Inc References
Jenkins, S. H. (2014). Contract Resurrected: Contract Formation: Common Law-UCC-CISG. NCJ Int’l L. & Com. Reg., 40, 245.
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc (1957) Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1365398257799813577&q=Lefkowit z+v.+Great+Minneapolis+Surplus+Store,+Inc.,+86+N.W.2d+689&hl=en&as_s dt=2006
Mann, R. A., & Roberts, B. S. (2011). Smith and Roberson’s business law. Cengage Learning.
Mann, R. A., & Roberts, B. S. (2015). Business law and the regulation of business. Nelson Education.
