Pepsi, where is my jet?

Quote: billryan

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: Wizard

I never said this was an easy case. That Pepsi put up roadblocks to honoring their deal doesn't negate the deal. They offered to a Harrier jet for 7 millions points and the sale of points for $0.10 each. What is so complicated about holding them to their promise?
link to original post

That's basically how I see it. I don't care what they did or didn't know.

One might assume they had a jet available since people saw a jet in the commercial.


I assume that was one of Pepsi's more profitable champagnes/ commercials and they profited tremendously. I don't know how long the commercial ran before the added just kidding or whatever.
link to original post

What would he have said if they presented him with the "jet" used in the commercial? I'd imagine it wasn't an actual working Harrier.

Years ago, I worked for a flea market that advertised that every hour, ten people would get a chance to win $50,000. In the 1980s, it was good money and attracted a lot of people. The raffle came and hundreds of people gathered to see who won. Ten names were drawn and nine showed up, so one more name was called. The ten winners were all thrilled,until they found out what they had won was an instant lotto ticket with a $50,000 top prize.
link to original post

They address that possibility in the documentary. It was indeed a mock prop jet and Pepsi did contemplate handing that over.

They decided that would look even more like they were trying to deceive. Instead they set up a meeting with the attorneys and made an offer for $750,000 with possibility to go as high as a million.

And that offer was turned down.

Quote: darkoz

Good questions.

I will start with the Canadian disclaimer. You actually are correct that the plaintiff would claim it proves Pepsi knew the offer could conceivably be taken seriously. Pepsi would make the SAME argument.

Their legal defense as I said is that they would claim E&O. Errors and Omissions is so common that most companies of this size have dedicated attorneys (the E&O department). Definitely in the arts (book publishing for example will have teams that go through every printed word looking for stuff that can cause problems legally. Using the song "happy birthday" for example which everyone thinks is public domain but is actually a copyrighted song. Use it in a book without permission at your peril).

So Pepsi would just argue "yes, we had the Canadian disclaimer which proves we were concerned someone would take us seriously AND we put it there to PREVENT anyone from being mislead and the lack of it in the US was just an E&O. It was never our intent to mislead. The advertisement went out with an omission of that graphic text as a disclaimer. A mistake on our part but not with any intention to deceive."

You might argue they should pay for the E&O mistake but Pepsi would argue they DID make a reasonable offer of a million bucks for their E&O and plaintiff refused.

There are also issues of equitable relief. The "Unjust Enrichment" legal doctrine is that people who received a service in return for payment that is inequitable or unjust enrichment on one party makes such an agreement void.

Payment of $700,000 for a $32,000,000 harrier jet? Because of a miscommunication between the parties and an E&O?

You also asked what if they had actually purchased (the doc says it would take $4-5 million in Pepsi purchases) to get the 7 million points.

I think they would have at least a STRONGER argument to make. But I still don't think they would have succeeded in a harrier jet. Certainly any company will have a (until supplies last) clause in their terms and service for the promotion. The lack of the jet listed would be Pepsi saying the supply isn't there because this was just an E&O (disclaimer left out by accident). The plaintiff would be entitled to all the other AVAILABLE gifts up to the redemption of his 7 million points but not specifically for a jet Harrier.

Anyway I am not an attorney but I have been pouring over legal decisions the last few months putting together a possible case I want to bring against Casinos so I have some idea of arguments that fly in court and argument that doesn't.
link to original post

(Quote clipped to remove excessive quote-in-quote)

E&O Argument: That's a reasonable enough argument, so then I think it becomes a question of how the jury would construe that. We already know how the corporate shill of a judge would have construed that, but perhaps the jury would decide that there was enough there, in that Pepsi felt the need to make a disclaimer, to conclude that a reasonable person could have interpreted it as an offer.

Of course, with what actually happened, E&O wouldn't even apply because the judge determined, solely, I might add, that no reasonable person would ever have believed there was a contract.

That's where I think my hypothetical is interesting because it creates three things:

1.) It creates a better argument that they relied on the television ad as conveying a contractual offer, or, if not contractual, conveying an offer.

2.) It demonstrates that they took the offer seriously enough that they did it, "The hard way."

3.) Perhaps crucially, the Plaintiff could demonstrate a significant material ($$$) loss as a result of their reliance on the contract. After all, it would be a pretty hefty price, even if they could resell to get some back, to accrue the points, "The hard way."

One point that I have seen brought up in this thread a couple of times is that Pepsi returned the check, so other than the negligible cost to accrue the fifteen, "Hard way," points, the Plaintiff couldn't ever really argue that they had lost anything. In the hypothetical scenario, the Plaintiff could demonstrate actual losses based on their reliance of Pepsi's unfulfilled contract.*

*Of course, Judge Shill would have probably ruled the same way on the Summary Judgment anyhow.

I think your, "Unjust Enrichment," argument is much weaker. The fact that the opportunity to gather 7,000,000 points to get the jet costs less than the jet itself doesn't prove anything, otherwise, you could use it as an argument against any sweepstakes that offers something of a greater value than the cost to enter the sweepstakes, which most sweepstakes do, or they would not be very attractive.

Further, any company could extend that argument to say, "Well, we obviously weren't going to give something greater than the customer's cost to get that thing, so clearly, the advertisement was not serious."

So, I think that would create a hell of a slippery slope.

It's a shame that we'll never know. I think, as interesting as this subject is, it would have been all the more so had they actually obtained the points, "The hard way."

My opinion, for the time being, remains that it should have went to the jury as it was, but if I were on the jury, I would rule against the Plaintiff on the grounds that there was nothing in the materials enabling them to actually order the jet. It was only through those same materials that they found the loophole, so if they hadn't found the loophole and claimed to have relied solely on the television ad, then it would be a lot more interesting.

Quote: billryan

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: Wizard

I never said this was an easy case. That Pepsi put up roadblocks to honoring their deal doesn't negate the deal. They offered to a Harrier jet for 7 millions points and the sale of points for $0.10 each. What is so complicated about holding them to their promise?
link to original post

That's basically how I see it. I don't care what they did or didn't know.

One might assume they had a jet available since people saw a jet in the commercial.


I assume that was one of Pepsi's more profitable champagnes/ commercials and they profited tremendously. I don't know how long the commercial ran before the added just kidding or whatever.
link to original post

What would he have said if they presented him with the "jet" used in the commercial? I'd imagine it wasn't an actual working Harrier.

Years ago, I worked for a flea market that advertised that every hour, ten people would get a chance to win $50,000. In the 1980s, it was good money and attracted a lot of people. The raffle came and hundreds of people gathered to see who won. Ten names were drawn and nine showed up, so one more name was called. The ten winners were all thrilled,until they found out what they had won was an instant lotto ticket with a $50,000 top prize.
link to original post

I might consider that fair play. Good luck with the negative press that would bring. And if they had done that it might be an admission of guilt. They would obviously be sued for false advertising by claiming it's not a working Harrier but the commercial represented it was a working Harrier.

I really only see one issue that needed to be answered: Were there enough reasonable people who believed you could use your points for a jet or = value? I don't think that should've been decided by one person. A jury should've made that decision. If this was so cut and dry we wouldn't be talking about it now and there wouldn't be so many differences of opinions.

In civil cases, who decides if a judge or jury hears the case? I know a criminal defendant has the choice, but not familiar with civil cases, as the few I've been involved with settled long before the courts got involved. If I were Pepsi, I'd want a judge to decide the case.

Quote: billryan

In civil cases, who decides if a judge or jury hears the case? I know a criminal defendant has the choice, but not familiar with civil cases, as the few I've been involved with settled long before the courts got involved. If I were Pepsi, I'd want a judge to decide the case.
link to original post

Well, Pepsi got what they wanted if the goal was for the (shill) judge to decide the case.

In any controversy over an amount greater than $20, based on a quick Google Search (so, might be wrong) either side is entitled to a trial by jury. Given the amount of this controversy, I should assume that a bench trial would have to be by agreement of the parties. The Plaintiff obviously would want this to be heard by a jury.

For this kind of sum, the only way I would imagine it would go to a bench trial is if both sides felt that they would win on highly technical legal grounds, such that a jury does not advantage either side, so then it would be possible that neither side would want a jury. PepsiCo almost certainly had the winning legal argument on this one, but I think it should have still been decided by a jury.

In the jurisdictions in which I practice, it depends on both the type of case and then on whether or not the plaintiff or defendant demand jury trial and deposit jury fees.

In other words, in law there is often no simple explanation.

Quote: Mission146

It was only through those same materials that they found the loophole, so if they hadn't found the loophole and claimed to have relied solely on the television ad, then it would be a lot more interesting.

I am curious as to why you characterize it as a loophole?

Loophole: "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules." I don't see any ambiguity in their offer to sell points.

Quote: DRich

Quote: Mission146

It was only through those same materials that they found the loophole, so if they hadn't found the loophole and claimed to have relied solely on the television ad, then it would be a lot more interesting.

I am curious as to why you characterize it as a loophole?

Loophole: "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules." I don't see any ambiguity in their offer to sell points.
link to original post

I saw it as a loophole to getting to seven million points. With the other items in the catalog, paying Pepsi for the points, in my estimation, would have been to effectively pay more than (Pepsi's) cost for the items and it is all but a retail purchase by mail, at that point.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: billryan

In civil cases, who decides if a judge or jury hears the case? I know a criminal defendant has the choice, but not familiar with civil cases, as the few I've been involved with settled long before the courts got involved. If I were Pepsi, I'd want a judge to decide the case.
link to original post

Well, Pepsi got what they wanted if the goal was for the (shill) judge to decide the case.

In any controversy over an amount greater than $20, based on a quick Google Search (so, might be wrong) either side is entitled to a trial by jury. Given the amount of this controversy, I should assume that a bench trial would have to be by agreement of the parties. The Plaintiff obviously would want this to be heard by a jury.

For this kind of sum, the only way I would imagine it would go to a bench trial is if both sides felt that they would win on highly technical legal grounds, such that a jury does not advantage either side, so then it would be possible that neither side would want a jury. PepsiCo almost certainly had the winning legal argument on this one, but I think it should have still been decided by a jury.
link to original post

Summary judgment is just one step in a defense's arsenal. It's used in a LOT of cases if not all. The defense tries to make a legal argument why the case has no merit and therefore is a waste of the courts time.

No defense attorney would not proceed without at least trying this move as it's a great way of avoiding trial.

I know you don't like the judges decision but calling her a shill is a bit unfair. I am certain she makes summary judgment decisions a lot and bases it on her legal opinion.

I don't fault Pepsi for making the obvious move. Rather you should fault the plaintiff who's job was to give in answer to the court why summary judgment was uncalled for. And yes before summary judgment is declared both sides give their argument in writing to the court.

When Michael avennatti says he didn't see a real path to victory that's an attorney recognizing the fault in his clients position

Quote: darkoz

Summary judgment is just one step in a defense's arsenal. It's used in a LOT of cases if not all. The defense tries to make a legal argument why the case has no merit and therefore is a waste of the courts time.

No defense attorney would not proceed without at least trying this move as it's a great way of avoiding trial.

I know you don't like the judges decision but calling her a shill is a bit unfair. I am certain she makes summary judgment decisions a lot and bases it on her legal opinion.

I don't fault Pepsi for making the obvious move. Rather you should fault the plaintiff who's job was to give in answer to the court why summary judgment was uncalled for. And yes before summary judgment is declared both sides give their argument in writing to the court.

When Michael avennatti says he didn't see a real path to victory that's an attorney recognizing the fault in his clients position
link to original post

She's a shill. Probably bought and paid for. Trademark PepsiCo.

Shill. Shill. Shill.

Yeah, she based it on her, "Legal opinion," of what a reasonable person would believe or not believe. How many people did she consult in coming to this decision? I guess she may have consulted Pepsi's attorneys. Hell, maybe Pepsi's attorney wrote the legal argument and case citations part of the judgment and she just added to it, who knows?

How can ONE PERSON decide, even if it is Judge GOD HERSELF, what a reasonable person would or would not believe? Is it impossible, by definition, for two reasonable people to believe different things?

How do you determine what a reasonable person is? Is sanity the standard? Is the ruling, effectively, "Only an insane person could have taken this as an offer?" Does a person have to have a minimum IQ, or level of educational attainment, to be considered reasonable?

Avenatti is just ticked off that they didn't approach it the way he wanted them to. He's also a professional corporate extortionist and just an all-around piece of (^&* on every conceivable level, so why would I ever care what he thinks? Next thing he'll probably try to sue Netflix for the intellectual rights to the entire documentary. The only thing that I like about Avenatti is that he proved what my opinion of him always was, flipping, "Fighter for Good," in his Twitter bio.

Quote: Mission146

How can ONE PERSON decide, even if it is Judge GOD HERSELF, what a reasonable person would or would not believe?

You are aware most trials there is no jury, and ONE PERSON decides if doubt is ‘reasonable’?

Edit. My usual pathetic formatting error!

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: Mission146

Quote: darkoz

How can ONE PERSON decide, even if it is Judge GOD HERSELF, what a reasonable person would or would not believe?

You are aware most trials there is no jury, and ONE PERSON decides if doubt is ‘reasonable’?

Edit. My usual pathetic formatting error!

link to original post

Different question. We're talking about the, "Reasonable person standard." I don't see how one person should ever be the sole arbiter of, or purport to speak for, what every reasonable person walking the Earth would think.

It seems that your formatting error has caused me to do the same. lol

Quote: Mission146

Quote: darkoz

Summary judgment is just one step in a defense's arsenal. It's used in a LOT of cases if not all. The defense tries to make a legal argument why the case has no merit and therefore is a waste of the courts time.

No defense attorney would not proceed without at least trying this move as it's a great way of avoiding trial.

I know you don't like the judges decision but calling her a shill is a bit unfair. I am certain she makes summary judgment decisions a lot and bases it on her legal opinion.

I don't fault Pepsi for making the obvious move. Rather you should fault the plaintiff who's job was to give in answer to the court why summary judgment was uncalled for. And yes before summary judgment is declared both sides give their argument in writing to the court.

When Michael avennatti says he didn't see a real path to victory that's an attorney recognizing the fault in his clients position
link to original post

She's a shill. Probably bought and paid for. Trademark PepsiCo.

Shill. Shill. Shill.

Yeah, she based it on her, "Legal opinion," of what a reasonable person would believe or not believe. How many people did she consult in coming to this decision? I guess she may have consulted Pepsi's attorneys. Hell, maybe Pepsi's attorney wrote the legal argument and case citations part of the judgment and she just added to it, who knows?

How can ONE PERSON decide, even if it is Judge GOD HERSELF, what a reasonable person would or would not believe? Is it impossible, by definition, for two reasonable people to believe different things?

How do you determine what a reasonable person is? Is sanity the standard? Is the ruling, effectively, "Only an insane person could have taken this as an offer?" Does a person have to have a minimum IQ, or level of educational attainment, to be considered reasonable?

Avenatti is just ticked off that they didn't approach it the way he wanted them to. He's also a professional corporate extortionist and just an all-around piece of (^&* on every conceivable level, so why would I ever care what he thinks? Next thing he'll probably try to sue Netflix for the intellectual rights to the entire documentary. The only thing that I like about Avenatti is that he proved what my opinion of him always was, flipping, "Fighter for Good," in his Twitter bio.
link to original post

If one person can't be counted on to decide what is right, why would you think twelve people can? Can three? Seven?
The judge you think was a shill decided some very high-profile cases and was nominated to be the Attorney General of the USofA.

Most cases are settled so they never see a jury but you have to have a case in order to get it to a jury. The Judge didn't see a case and threw it out. She certainly wasn't a shill for Pepsi or Wall Street. Ask Mike Milken about her.

Quote: billryan

If one person can't be counted on to decide what is right, why would you think twelve people can? Can three? Seven?
The judge you think was a shill decided some very high-profile cases and was nominated to be the Attorney General of the USofA.

Most cases are settled so they never see a jury but you have to have a case in order to get it to a jury. The Judge didn't see a case and threw it out. She certainly wasn't a shill for Pepsi or Wall Street. Ask Mike Milken about her.
link to original post

1.) Because 12 people is a larger sample size than one.

2.) Because the 12 people would actually be a jury of this individual's peers, and other consumers, who theoretically could have bought into the idea that this was an actual offer being conveyed by Pepsi. Everything in the summary judgment ruling just reeks of bias on the judge's part given her own personal perception of what a reasonable person might or might not believe. Just because Judge GOD HERSELF wouldn't believe that a reasonable person wouldn't take it that way doesn't mean that no reasonable person could.

We're not dealing in pure verifiable fact as to that question. The question being asked is whether or not a reasonable person could believe it was a conveyance of an offer. I find it very difficult to believe that one person can not only come up with an objective definition for what a reasonable person is, but also, possesses such staggering insight into the opinions of others to conclude what every reasonable person on the planet could possibly believe.

She knew what her conclusion was and structured her decision to support that conclusion. That's the exact reason people have a right to trials by jury, otherwise, judges could hand down whatever ruling they want to about anything.

I also think Pepsi really didn't want this in front of a jury because national news outlets may well have followed the trial, which is bad news for them even in the very likely event they had won. News would be, in my opinion, playing clips of the commercial without the disclaimer and opining as to whether or not they thought it was an offer on Pepsi's part. Additionally, I don't know if the news outlets would know, or if they did know, would make it a big point to present that the kid was offered a 1M settlement and refused.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: billryan

If one person can't be counted on to decide what is right, why would you think twelve people can? Can three? Seven?
The judge you think was a shill decided some very high-profile cases and was nominated to be the Attorney General of the USofA.

Most cases are settled so they never see a jury but you have to have a case in order to get it to a jury. The Judge didn't see a case and threw it out. She certainly wasn't a shill for Pepsi or Wall Street. Ask Mike Milken about her.
link to original post

1.) Because 12 people is a larger sample size than one.

2.) Because the 12 people would actually be a jury of this individual's peers, and other consumers, who theoretically could have bought into the idea that this was an actual offer being conveyed by Pepsi. Everything in the summary judgment ruling just reeks of bias on the judge's part given her own personal perception of what a reasonable person might or might not believe. Just because Judge GOD HERSELF wouldn't believe that a reasonable person wouldn't take it that way doesn't mean that no reasonable person could.

We're not dealing in pure verifiable fact as to that question. The question being asked is whether or not a reasonable person could believe it was a conveyance of an offer. I find it very difficult to believe that one person can not only come up with an objective definition for what a reasonable person is, but also, possesses such staggering insight into the opinions of others to conclude what every reasonable person on the planet could possibly believe.

She knew what her conclusion was and structured her decision to support that conclusion. That's the exact reason people have a right to trials by jury, otherwise, judges could hand down whatever ruling they want to about anything.
link to original post

The Judge has several hundred years of precedent about what a reasonable person would conclude.

Quote: billryan

The Judge has several hundred years of precedent about what a reasonable person would conclude.
link to original post

Probably, but it's not like she'd have needed any of it. I didn't realize there had been so many historical cases about a major corporation's national televised promotion purportedly offering a multi-million dollar item in exchange for redemption points with no disclaimer, to that point.

I took one pre-law class forty years ago and slept thru most of it but I vaguely recall the instructor(full-time trial lawyer and part-time professor said there were only a dozen or so cases, and everything else is just variations. He also said few lawyers ever appear before a jury, and that successful lawyers win with paperwork.

Quote: billryan

. He also said few lawyers ever appear before a jury, and that successful lawyers win with paperwork.

Sadly, that is true. Lawyers know if they settle they can handle a lot more cases and make more money. I've seen personal injury lawyers advertise a 35% fee unless it goes to trial and then it is a 50% fee.

It's interesting that the documentary ends with judge Kimba Woods summary judgment.

It was appealed. I wonder why they didn't bring that up?

Maybe because the appellate division upheld her entire decision.

Hmmmm!

Why wouldn’t they have upheld it?

Quote: Mission146

Why wouldn’t they have upheld it?
link to original post

What do you mean?

You have been saying she is a shill for Pepsi. That her decision is not logical.

If that was true the appellate division would have overturned her decision.

Having read a few dozen appeals in the last few months these cases are overturned more than you would believe.

The appeals process is expensive. And you have to state the reason you believe the lower circuit judge was mistaken in her decision. So I find people don't appeal frivolously or just because the appeals process is there.

Sometimes their reasons for the lower court being wrong are upheld but often they are overturned.

I trust the appellate division much more than the lower court judges.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

Why wouldn’t they have upheld it?
link to original post

What do you mean?

You have been saying she is a shill for Pepsi. That her decision is not logical.

If that was true the appellate division would have overturned her decision.

Having read a few dozen appeals in the last few months these cases are overturned more than you would believe.

The appeals process is expensive. And you have to state the reason you believe the lower circuit judge was mistaken in her decision. So I find people don't appeal frivolously or just because the appeals process is there.

Sometimes their reasons for the lower court being wrong are upheld but often they are overturned.

I trust the appellate division much more than the lower court judges.
link to original post

That's not necessarily so. My issue with her decision relates specifically to the, "Reasonable person," aspect of it. There were a couple of other aspects to the decision upon which I wouldn't even attempt to opine, so it could have been upheld as a result of those.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

Why wouldn’t they have upheld it?
link to original post

What do you mean?

You have been saying she is a shill for Pepsi. That her decision is not logical.

If that was true the appellate division would have overturned her decision.

Having read a few dozen appeals in the last few months these cases are overturned more than you would believe.

The appeals process is expensive. And you have to state the reason you believe the lower circuit judge was mistaken in her decision. So I find people don't appeal frivolously or just because the appeals process is there.

Sometimes their reasons for the lower court being wrong are upheld but often they are overturned.

I trust the appellate division much more than the lower court judges.
link to original post

That's not necessarily so. My issue with her decision relates specifically to the, "Reasonable person," aspect of it. There were a couple of other aspects to the decision upon which I wouldn't even attempt to opine, so it could have been upheld as a result of those.
link to original post

Perhaps you are confusing the legal "Reasonable person" with an average person. They are very different. If you haven't already read it, read the Wikipedia entry. The Judge didn't use her opinion, she followed established law.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

Why wouldn’t they have upheld it?
link to original post

What do you mean?

You have been saying she is a shill for Pepsi. That her decision is not logical.

If that was true the appellate division would have overturned her decision.

Having read a few dozen appeals in the last few months these cases are overturned more than you would believe.

The appeals process is expensive. And you have to state the reason you believe the lower circuit judge was mistaken in her decision. So I find people don't appeal frivolously or just because the appeals process is there.

Sometimes their reasons for the lower court being wrong are upheld but often they are overturned.

I trust the appellate division much more than the lower court judges.
link to original post

That's not necessarily so. My issue with her decision relates specifically to the, "Reasonable person," aspect of it. There were a couple of other aspects to the decision upon which I wouldn't even attempt to opine, so it could have been upheld as a result of those.
link to original post

Bill is correct about her using established law in her decision.

But let's say for argument sake that it had gone to a jury and they had even awarded the Harrier jet.

As you pointed out there were other legal reasons they lost. Those would have been brought up in appeal and the jury verdict would have been overturned. Same end result.

Which was the purpose of the summary judgment. To avoid wasting the courts time on a case that the plaintiff wouldn't prevail based on case precedent and contract law.

Quote: billryan

Perhaps you are confusing the legal "Reasonable person" with an average person. They are very different. If you haven't already read it, read the Wikipedia entry. The Judge didn't use her opinion, she followed established law.
link to original post

Yeah, a bunch of case law that amounts to, "A reasonable person is whatever the court wants a reasonable person to be in that moment."

Quote: darkoz

Bill is correct about her using established law in her decision.

But let's say for argument sake that it had gone to a jury and they had even awarded the Harrier jet.

As you pointed out there were other legal reasons they lost. Those would have been brought up in appeal and the jury verdict would have been overturned. Same end result.

Which was the purpose of the summary judgment. To avoid wasting the courts time on a case that the plaintiff wouldn't prevail based on case precedent and contract law.
link to original post

In order for that to happen, the judge would have first had to reject the motion for summary judgment. It would seem that a motion for summary judgment being denied is considered, "Interlocutory," and cannot be appealed. In other words, if the judge sees fit that it should go to trial, then that cannot be changed.

When it comes to the jury, they look at the broader scope of it and then decide one way or another. As far as the, "Reasonable person," standard, I don't see where an Appeals Court would reverse the jury's decision on that.

That leaves the first and third reasons that the judge granted Summary Judgment, which are the ones that I don't even feel it's appropriate for me to opine on.

Also, an Appeals Court can't just reverse a jury's decision and say, "Those were not correct legal grounds," or there would be no point in having juries in the first place as the courts could do whatever they want at all times anyway. In order to reverse a jury's decision, an Appeals Court has to identify a reversible error that the court made and determine, but for the court making that error, the jury never would have arrived at that decision.

With that, I am quite confident that a jury is significantly more likely to find the Plaintiff's case compelling. The Defense would have to first be able to explain the contract laws to the jury and then successfully demonstrate to the jury why there was no contract.

I think it's worthwhile for a jury to decide that one.

Like I said, I'd have decided in favor of the Defendant (based on the way the points were accrued), so we're on the same page there. They attempted to order the jet knowing there was no actual way to order it. If they could compel me that they relied exclusively on the television advertisement, and gained all the points based on that reliance, then I would have ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.

Also, the Appellate Court's upholding is three scant paragraphs long.

I'm going to read through this Summary Judgment again:

1.) Interestingly, the judge seems to state that the thing in question even being an offer relies on agreement of the parties, so essentially, that Pepsi represented the jet does not even mean it's an offer even if the other party accepts. One thing I found interesting is that, even if the jet appeared in the catalog, the judge states it wouldn't represent an offer:

https://casetext.com/case/leonard-v-pepsico-inc-2

Quote:

Second, even if the Catalog had included a Harrier Jet among the items that could be obtained by redemption of Pepsi Points, the advertisement of a Harrier Jet by both television commercial and catalog would still not constitute an offer. As the Mesaros court explained, the absence of any words of limitation such as "first come, first served," renders the alleged offer sufficiently indefinite that no contract could be formed. See Mesaros, 845 F.2d at 1581. "A customer would not usually have reason to believe that the shopkeeper intended exposure to the risk of a multitude of acceptances resulting in a number of contracts exceeding the shopkeeper's inventory." Farnsworth, supra, at 242. There was no such danger in Lefkowitz, owing to the limitation "first come, first served."

Again, so people doing advertising, legally, can do whatever they want. They can claim anything and there will be no recourse.

I mean, the offer wasn't even in the catalog anyway. How much of a corporate shill does the judge have to be to go out of her way to state that, even if the Harrier Jet for 7,000,000 HAD been in the catalog, that still wouldn't be an offer?

2.) After that, the judge reiterates that the catalog does not contain a mention of a Harrier Jet:

Quote:

In the present case, the Harrier Jet commercial did not direct that anyone who appeared at Pepsi headquarters with 7,000,000 Pepsi Points on the Fourth of July would receive a Harrier Jet. Instead, the commercial urged consumers to accumulate Pepsi Points and to refer to the Catalog to determine how they could redeem their Pepsi Points. The commercial sought a reciprocal promise, expressed through acceptance of, and compliance with, the terms of the Order Form. As noted previously, the Catalog contains no mention of the Harrier Jet. Plaintiff states that he "noted that the Harrier Jet was not among the items described in the catalog, but this did not affect [his] understanding of the offer." (Pl. Mem. at

That's what would have swung it for me had I been on the jury because they also relied on the catalog in finding the loophole. Had they obtained all points relying solely on the television advertisement, then I would have agreed with them.

Although, while this is something I agree with, I still think it's weird because the judge says...even if it had been in the catalog, that wouldn't matter anyway.

3.) My entire problem with the judgment is in this heading:

Quote:

C. An Objective, Reasonable Person Would Not Have Considered the Commercial an Offer

Why wouldn't they have? Why does Judge GOD HERSELF get to decide what every objective and reasonable person would consider or not consider?

Granted, I was very young at the time, but I thought it was an offer (when I first saw the commercial) and laughed, "Ha! As if someone could actually get that many points."

That doesn't mean I didn't think Pepsi would give a harrier jet if someone actually did so, just that I thought they were offering something nobody could figure out a way to do.

And, with all of the people out there who would suggest that the television commercial, taken alone, conveyed an offer...are you really going to tell me that every single one of those individuals is legally unreasonable and legally unobjective?

Even if they were, is everyone watching a commercial supposed to have full knowledge and grasp of %$^*&$%^*ing contract law!!!???

In other words, the judge, in her subjective opinion, doesn't think an objective and reasonable person could have taken it as an offer. That's ridiculous.

Quote:

This case, in contrast, presents a question of whether there was an offer to enter into a contract, requiring the Court to determine how a reasonable, objective person would have understood defendant's commercial. Such an inquiry is commonly performed by courts on a motion for summary judgment. See Krumme, 143 F.3d at 83; Bourque, 42 F.3d at 708; Wards Co., 761 F.2d at 120.

Again, so you're telling me that every single person who watched the commercial is supposed to understand contract law in order to be considered reasonable and objective? Okay, so commercials can just take advantage of unreasonable and unobjective people whenever they want to because all it takes is for a judge to decide that the person suing is not reasonable and not objective. Got it.

And then...the long and pointless dissertation about what a joke is or is not...all for the purpose of getting herself in law books.

The first and third points were enough for the purposes of Summary Judgment, but JUDGE GOD HERSELF, the corporate shill, just had to pour it on.

She could have let this go to jury and MAYBE there would be a precedent that you couldn't have commercials that mislead people in order to incite them to action, but nope, not only did she decide it on her preferred interpretation of contract law, but she also had to pile on so she could cause her own legal star to rise in the process.

4.) The third part of the ruling, as far as I can understand it, seems totally irrelevant if there was no contract to begin with.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: darkoz

Bill is correct about her using established law in her decision.

But let's say for argument sake that it had gone to a jury and they had even awarded the Harrier jet.

As you pointed out there were other legal reasons they lost. Those would have been brought up in appeal and the jury verdict would have been overturned. Same end result.

Which was the purpose of the summary judgment. To avoid wasting the courts time on a case that the plaintiff wouldn't prevail based on case precedent and contract law.
link to original post

In order for that to happen, the judge would have first had to reject the motion for summary judgment. It would seem that a motion for summary judgment being denied is considered, "Interlocutory," and cannot be appealed. In other words, if the judge sees fit that it should go to trial, then that cannot be changed.

When it comes to the jury, they look at the broader scope of it and then decide one way or another. As far as the, "Reasonable person," standard, I don't see where an Appeals Court would reverse the jury's decision on that.

That leaves the first and third reasons that the judge granted Summary Judgment, which are the ones that I don't even feel it's appropriate for me to opine on.

Also, an Appeals Court can't just reverse a jury's decision and say, "Those were not correct legal grounds," or there would be no point in having juries in the first place as the courts could do whatever they want at all times anyway. In order to reverse a jury's decision, an Appeals Court has to identify a reversible error that the court made and determine, but for the court making that error, the jury never would have arrived at that decision.

With that, I am quite confident that a jury is significantly more likely to find the Plaintiff's case compelling. The Defense would have to first be able to explain the contract laws to the jury and then successfully demonstrate to the jury why there was no contract.

I think it's worthwhile for a jury to decide that one.

Like I said, I'd have decided in favor of the Defendant (based on the way the points were accrued), so we're on the same page there. They attempted to order the jet knowing there was no actual way to order it. If they could compel me that they relied exclusively on the television advertisement, and gained all the points based on that reliance, then I would have ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.

Also, the Appellate Court's upholding is three scant paragraphs long.

I'm going to read through this Summary Judgment again:

1.) Interestingly, the judge seems to state that the thing in question even being an offer relies on agreement of the parties, so essentially, that Pepsi represented the jet does not even mean it's an offer even if the other party accepts. One thing I found interesting is that, even if the jet appeared in the catalog, the judge states it wouldn't represent an offer:

https://casetext.com/case/leonard-v-pepsico-inc-2

Quote:

Second, even if the Catalog had included a Harrier Jet among the items that could be obtained by redemption of Pepsi Points, the advertisement of a Harrier Jet by both television commercial and catalog would still not constitute an offer. As the Mesaros court explained, the absence of any words of limitation such as "first come, first served," renders the alleged offer sufficiently indefinite that no contract could be formed. See Mesaros, 845 F.2d at 1581. "A customer would not usually have reason to believe that the shopkeeper intended exposure to the risk of a multitude of acceptances resulting in a number of contracts exceeding the shopkeeper's inventory." Farnsworth, supra, at 242. There was no such danger in Lefkowitz, owing to the limitation "first come, first served."

Again, so people doing advertising, legally, can do whatever they want. They can claim anything and there will be no recourse.

I mean, the offer wasn't even in the catalog anyway. How much of a corporate shill does the judge have to be to go out of her way to state that, even if the Harrier Jet for 7,000,000 HAD been in the catalog, that still wouldn't be an offer?

2.) After that, the judge reiterates that the catalog does not contain a mention of a Harrier Jet:

Quote:

In the present case, the Harrier Jet commercial did not direct that anyone who appeared at Pepsi headquarters with 7,000,000 Pepsi Points on the Fourth of July would receive a Harrier Jet. Instead, the commercial urged consumers to accumulate Pepsi Points and to refer to the Catalog to determine how they could redeem their Pepsi Points. The commercial sought a reciprocal promise, expressed through acceptance of, and compliance with, the terms of the Order Form. As noted previously, the Catalog contains no mention of the Harrier Jet. Plaintiff states that he "noted that the Harrier Jet was not among the items described in the catalog, but this did not affect [his] understanding of the offer." (Pl. Mem. at

That's what would have swung it for me had I been on the jury because they also relied on the catalog in finding the loophole. Had they obtained all points relying solely on the television advertisement, then I would have agreed with them.

Although, while this is something I agree with, I still think it's weird because the judge says...even if it had been in the catalog, that wouldn't matter anyway.

3.) My entire problem with the judgment is in this heading:

Quote:

C. An Objective, Reasonable Person Would Not Have Considered the Commercial an Offer

Why wouldn't they have? Why does Judge GOD HERSELF get to decide what every objective and reasonable person would consider or not consider?

Granted, I was very young at the time, but I thought it was an offer (when I first saw the commercial) and laughed, "Ha! As if someone could actually get that many points."

That doesn't mean I didn't think Pepsi would give a harrier jet if someone actually did so, just that I thought they were offering something nobody could figure out a way to do.

And, with all of the people out there who would suggest that the television commercial, taken alone, conveyed an offer...are you really going to tell me that every single one of those individuals is legally unreasonable and legally unobjective?

Even if they were, is everyone watching a commercial supposed to have full knowledge and grasp of %$^*&$%^*ing contract law!!!???

In other words, the judge, in her subjective opinion, doesn't think an objective and reasonable person could have taken it as an offer. That's ridiculous.

Quote:

This case, in contrast, presents a question of whether there was an offer to enter into a contract, requiring the Court to determine how a reasonable, objective person would have understood defendant's commercial. Such an inquiry is commonly performed by courts on a motion for summary judgment. See Krumme, 143 F.3d at 83; Bourque, 42 F.3d at 708; Wards Co., 761 F.2d at 120.

Again, so you're telling me that every single person who watched the commercial is supposed to understand contract law in order to be considered reasonable and objective? Okay, so commercials can just take advantage of unreasonable and unobjective people whenever they want to because all it takes is for a judge to decide that the person suing is not reasonable and not objective. Got it.

And then...the long and pointless dissertation about what a joke is or is not...all for the purpose of getting herself in law books.

The first and third points were enough for the purposes of Summary Judgment, but JUDGE GOD HERSELF, the corporate shill, just had to pour it on.

She could have let this go to jury and MAYBE there would be a precedent that you couldn't have commercials that mislead people in order to incite them to action, but nope, not only did she decide it on her preferred interpretation of contract law, but she also had to pile on so she could cause her own legal star to rise in the process.

4.) The third part of the ruling, as far as I can understand it, seems totally irrelevant if there was no contract to begin with.
link to original post

The judge cited a particular aspect of contract law that certain items under the law can only be brought and sold with a WRITTEN contract signed by all involved parties.

Real Estate should be an obvious one. If you see a house with a for sale sign and the price is a million dollars that doesn't constitute a legal contract. You can't own the house simply because you show up with the million dollars. You have to go through the process of getting the deed signed etc.

Apparently contract law covers a number of items that a simple offer isn't good enough. You must enter into a written contract.

One of those is not particular to type of item (re real estate) but cost. The harrier jet cost of $700,000 propelled it into that aspect of contract law that the "offer" or advertisement wasn't the contract.

The contract for such high priced item necessitated a written agreement between the parties.

And obviously since Pepsi didn't agree there was no "contract" to hold them to.

To use the real estate example, it's like demanding you take possession of a house for sale because you saw a sign on the front lawn and you have the cash. You agree that would be unreasonable if the landlord refused to sell it to you and didn't sign anything? (Assuming the reason for no sale wasn't due to race religion etc).

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

Quote: darkoz

Bill is correct about her using established law in her decision.

But let's say for argument sake that it had gone to a jury and they had even awarded the Harrier jet.

As you pointed out there were other legal reasons they lost. Those would have been brought up in appeal and the jury verdict would have been overturned. Same end result.

Which was the purpose of the summary judgment. To avoid wasting the courts time on a case that the plaintiff wouldn't prevail based on case precedent and contract law.
link to original post

In order for that to happen, the judge would have first had to reject the motion for summary judgment. It would seem that a motion for summary judgment being denied is considered, "Interlocutory," and cannot be appealed. In other words, if the judge sees fit that it should go to trial, then that cannot be changed.

When it comes to the jury, they look at the broader scope of it and then decide one way or another. As far as the, "Reasonable person," standard, I don't see where an Appeals Court would reverse the jury's decision on that.

That leaves the first and third reasons that the judge granted Summary Judgment, which are the ones that I don't even feel it's appropriate for me to opine on.

Also, an Appeals Court can't just reverse a jury's decision and say, "Those were not correct legal grounds," or there would be no point in having juries in the first place as the courts could do whatever they want at all times anyway. In order to reverse a jury's decision, an Appeals Court has to identify a reversible error that the court made and determine, but for the court making that error, the jury never would have arrived at that decision.

With that, I am quite confident that a jury is significantly more likely to find the Plaintiff's case compelling. The Defense would have to first be able to explain the contract laws to the jury and then successfully demonstrate to the jury why there was no contract.

I think it's worthwhile for a jury to decide that one.

Like I said, I'd have decided in favor of the Defendant (based on the way the points were accrued), so we're on the same page there. They attempted to order the jet knowing there was no actual way to order it. If they could compel me that they relied exclusively on the television advertisement, and gained all the points based on that reliance, then I would have ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.

Also, the Appellate Court's upholding is three scant paragraphs long.

I'm going to read through this Summary Judgment again:

1.) Interestingly, the judge seems to state that the thing in question even being an offer relies on agreement of the parties, so essentially, that Pepsi represented the jet does not even mean it's an offer even if the other party accepts. One thing I found interesting is that, even if the jet appeared in the catalog, the judge states it wouldn't represent an offer:

https://casetext.com/case/leonard-v-pepsico-inc-2

Quote:

Second, even if the Catalog had included a Harrier Jet among the items that could be obtained by redemption of Pepsi Points, the advertisement of a Harrier Jet by both television commercial and catalog would still not constitute an offer. As the Mesaros court explained, the absence of any words of limitation such as "first come, first served," renders the alleged offer sufficiently indefinite that no contract could be formed. See Mesaros, 845 F.2d at 1581. "A customer would not usually have reason to believe that the shopkeeper intended exposure to the risk of a multitude of acceptances resulting in a number of contracts exceeding the shopkeeper's inventory." Farnsworth, supra, at 242. There was no such danger in Lefkowitz, owing to the limitation "first come, first served."

Again, so people doing advertising, legally, can do whatever they want. They can claim anything and there will be no recourse.

I mean, the offer wasn't even in the catalog anyway. How much of a corporate shill does the judge have to be to go out of her way to state that, even if the Harrier Jet for 7,000,000 HAD been in the catalog, that still wouldn't be an offer?

2.) After that, the judge reiterates that the catalog does not contain a mention of a Harrier Jet:

Quote:

In the present case, the Harrier Jet commercial did not direct that anyone who appeared at Pepsi headquarters with 7,000,000 Pepsi Points on the Fourth of July would receive a Harrier Jet. Instead, the commercial urged consumers to accumulate Pepsi Points and to refer to the Catalog to determine how they could redeem their Pepsi Points. The commercial sought a reciprocal promise, expressed through acceptance of, and compliance with, the terms of the Order Form. As noted previously, the Catalog contains no mention of the Harrier Jet. Plaintiff states that he "noted that the Harrier Jet was not among the items described in the catalog, but this did not affect [his] understanding of the offer." (Pl. Mem. at

That's what would have swung it for me had I been on the jury because they also relied on the catalog in finding the loophole. Had they obtained all points relying solely on the television advertisement, then I would have agreed with them.

Although, while this is something I agree with, I still think it's weird because the judge says...even if it had been in the catalog, that wouldn't matter anyway.

3.) My entire problem with the judgment is in this heading:

Quote:

C. An Objective, Reasonable Person Would Not Have Considered the Commercial an Offer

Why wouldn't they have? Why does Judge GOD HERSELF get to decide what every objective and reasonable person would consider or not consider?

Granted, I was very young at the time, but I thought it was an offer (when I first saw the commercial) and laughed, "Ha! As if someone could actually get that many points."

That doesn't mean I didn't think Pepsi would give a harrier jet if someone actually did so, just that I thought they were offering something nobody could figure out a way to do.

And, with all of the people out there who would suggest that the television commercial, taken alone, conveyed an offer...are you really going to tell me that every single one of those individuals is legally unreasonable and legally unobjective?

Even if they were, is everyone watching a commercial supposed to have full knowledge and grasp of %$^*&$%^*ing contract law!!!???

In other words, the judge, in her subjective opinion, doesn't think an objective and reasonable person could have taken it as an offer. That's ridiculous.

Quote:

This case, in contrast, presents a question of whether there was an offer to enter into a contract, requiring the Court to determine how a reasonable, objective person would have understood defendant's commercial. Such an inquiry is commonly performed by courts on a motion for summary judgment. See Krumme, 143 F.3d at 83; Bourque, 42 F.3d at 708; Wards Co., 761 F.2d at 120.

Again, so you're telling me that every single person who watched the commercial is supposed to understand contract law in order to be considered reasonable and objective? Okay, so commercials can just take advantage of unreasonable and unobjective people whenever they want to because all it takes is for a judge to decide that the person suing is not reasonable and not objective. Got it.

And then...the long and pointless dissertation about what a joke is or is not...all for the purpose of getting herself in law books.

The first and third points were enough for the purposes of Summary Judgment, but JUDGE GOD HERSELF, the corporate shill, just had to pour it on.

She could have let this go to jury and MAYBE there would be a precedent that you couldn't have commercials that mislead people in order to incite them to action, but nope, not only did she decide it on her preferred interpretation of contract law, but she also had to pile on so she could cause her own legal star to rise in the process.

4.) The third part of the ruling, as far as I can understand it, seems totally irrelevant if there was no contract to begin with.
link to original post

The judge cited a particular aspect of contract law that certain items under the law can only be brought and sold with a WRITTEN contract signed by all involved parties.

Real Estate should be an obvious one. If you see a house with a for sale sign and the price is a million dollars that doesn't constitute a legal contract. You can't own the house simply because you show up with the million dollars. You have to go through the process of getting the deed signed etc.

Apparently contract law covers a number of items that a simple offer isn't good enough. You must enter into a written contract.

One of those is not particular to type of item (re real estate) but cost. The harrier jet cost of $700,000 propelled it into that aspect of contract law that the "offer" or advertisement wasn't the contract.

The contract for such high priced item necessitated a written agreement between the parties.

And obviously since Pepsi didn't agree there was no "contract" to hold them to.

To use the real estate example, it's like demanding you take possession of a house for sale because you saw a sign on the front lawn and you have the cash. You agree that would be unreasonable if the landlord refused to sell it to you and didn't sign anything? (Assuming the reason for no sale wasn't due to race religion etc).
link to original post

I assume there are specific laws when it comes to real estate. The problem I see in general is using old laws in modern times.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

Quote: darkoz

Bill is correct about her using established law in her decision.

But let's say for argument sake that it had gone to a jury and they had even awarded the Harrier jet.

As you pointed out there were other legal reasons they lost. Those would have been brought up in appeal and the jury verdict would have been overturned. Same end result.

Which was the purpose of the summary judgment. To avoid wasting the courts time on a case that the plaintiff wouldn't prevail based on case precedent and contract law.
link to original post

In order for that to happen, the judge would have first had to reject the motion for summary judgment. It would seem that a motion for summary judgment being denied is considered, "Interlocutory," and cannot be appealed. In other words, if the judge sees fit that it should go to trial, then that cannot be changed.

When it comes to the jury, they look at the broader scope of it and then decide one way or another. As far as the, "Reasonable person," standard, I don't see where an Appeals Court would reverse the jury's decision on that.

That leaves the first and third reasons that the judge granted Summary Judgment, which are the ones that I don't even feel it's appropriate for me to opine on.

Also, an Appeals Court can't just reverse a jury's decision and say, "Those were not correct legal grounds," or there would be no point in having juries in the first place as the courts could do whatever they want at all times anyway. In order to reverse a jury's decision, an Appeals Court has to identify a reversible error that the court made and determine, but for the court making that error, the jury never would have arrived at that decision.

With that, I am quite confident that a jury is significantly more likely to find the Plaintiff's case compelling. The Defense would have to first be able to explain the contract laws to the jury and then successfully demonstrate to the jury why there was no contract.

I think it's worthwhile for a jury to decide that one.

Like I said, I'd have decided in favor of the Defendant (based on the way the points were accrued), so we're on the same page there. They attempted to order the jet knowing there was no actual way to order it. If they could compel me that they relied exclusively on the television advertisement, and gained all the points based on that reliance, then I would have ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.

Also, the Appellate Court's upholding is three scant paragraphs long.

I'm going to read through this Summary Judgment again:

1.) Interestingly, the judge seems to state that the thing in question even being an offer relies on agreement of the parties, so essentially, that Pepsi represented the jet does not even mean it's an offer even if the other party accepts. One thing I found interesting is that, even if the jet appeared in the catalog, the judge states it wouldn't represent an offer:

https://casetext.com/case/leonard-v-pepsico-inc-2

Quote:

Second, even if the Catalog had included a Harrier Jet among the items that could be obtained by redemption of Pepsi Points, the advertisement of a Harrier Jet by both television commercial and catalog would still not constitute an offer. As the Mesaros court explained, the absence of any words of limitation such as "first come, first served," renders the alleged offer sufficiently indefinite that no contract could be formed. See Mesaros, 845 F.2d at 1581. "A customer would not usually have reason to believe that the shopkeeper intended exposure to the risk of a multitude of acceptances resulting in a number of contracts exceeding the shopkeeper's inventory." Farnsworth, supra, at 242. There was no such danger in Lefkowitz, owing to the limitation "first come, first served."

Again, so people doing advertising, legally, can do whatever they want. They can claim anything and there will be no recourse.

I mean, the offer wasn't even in the catalog anyway. How much of a corporate shill does the judge have to be to go out of her way to state that, even if the Harrier Jet for 7,000,000 HAD been in the catalog, that still wouldn't be an offer?

2.) After that, the judge reiterates that the catalog does not contain a mention of a Harrier Jet:

Quote:

In the present case, the Harrier Jet commercial did not direct that anyone who appeared at Pepsi headquarters with 7,000,000 Pepsi Points on the Fourth of July would receive a Harrier Jet. Instead, the commercial urged consumers to accumulate Pepsi Points and to refer to the Catalog to determine how they could redeem their Pepsi Points. The commercial sought a reciprocal promise, expressed through acceptance of, and compliance with, the terms of the Order Form. As noted previously, the Catalog contains no mention of the Harrier Jet. Plaintiff states that he "noted that the Harrier Jet was not among the items described in the catalog, but this did not affect [his] understanding of the offer." (Pl. Mem. at

That's what would have swung it for me had I been on the jury because they also relied on the catalog in finding the loophole. Had they obtained all points relying solely on the television advertisement, then I would have agreed with them.

Although, while this is something I agree with, I still think it's weird because the judge says...even if it had been in the catalog, that wouldn't matter anyway.

3.) My entire problem with the judgment is in this heading:

Quote:

C. An Objective, Reasonable Person Would Not Have Considered the Commercial an Offer

Why wouldn't they have? Why does Judge GOD HERSELF get to decide what every objective and reasonable person would consider or not consider?

Granted, I was very young at the time, but I thought it was an offer (when I first saw the commercial) and laughed, "Ha! As if someone could actually get that many points."

That doesn't mean I didn't think Pepsi would give a harrier jet if someone actually did so, just that I thought they were offering something nobody could figure out a way to do.

And, with all of the people out there who would suggest that the television commercial, taken alone, conveyed an offer...are you really going to tell me that every single one of those individuals is legally unreasonable and legally unobjective?

Even if they were, is everyone watching a commercial supposed to have full knowledge and grasp of %$^*&$%^*ing contract law!!!???

In other words, the judge, in her subjective opinion, doesn't think an objective and reasonable person could have taken it as an offer. That's ridiculous.

Quote:

This case, in contrast, presents a question of whether there was an offer to enter into a contract, requiring the Court to determine how a reasonable, objective person would have understood defendant's commercial. Such an inquiry is commonly performed by courts on a motion for summary judgment. See Krumme, 143 F.3d at 83; Bourque, 42 F.3d at 708; Wards Co., 761 F.2d at 120.

Again, so you're telling me that every single person who watched the commercial is supposed to understand contract law in order to be considered reasonable and objective? Okay, so commercials can just take advantage of unreasonable and unobjective people whenever they want to because all it takes is for a judge to decide that the person suing is not reasonable and not objective. Got it.

And then...the long and pointless dissertation about what a joke is or is not...all for the purpose of getting herself in law books.

The first and third points were enough for the purposes of Summary Judgment, but JUDGE GOD HERSELF, the corporate shill, just had to pour it on.

She could have let this go to jury and MAYBE there would be a precedent that you couldn't have commercials that mislead people in order to incite them to action, but nope, not only did she decide it on her preferred interpretation of contract law, but she also had to pile on so she could cause her own legal star to rise in the process.

4.) The third part of the ruling, as far as I can understand it, seems totally irrelevant if there was no contract to begin with.
link to original post

The judge cited a particular aspect of contract law that certain items under the law can only be brought and sold with a WRITTEN contract signed by all involved parties.

Real Estate should be an obvious one. If you see a house with a for sale sign and the price is a million dollars that doesn't constitute a legal contract. You can't own the house simply because you show up with the million dollars. You have to go through the process of getting the deed signed etc.

Apparently contract law covers a number of items that a simple offer isn't good enough. You must enter into a written contract.

One of those is not particular to type of item (re real estate) but cost. The harrier jet cost of $700,000 propelled it into that aspect of contract law that the "offer" or advertisement wasn't the contract.

The contract for such high priced item necessitated a written agreement between the parties.

And obviously since Pepsi didn't agree there was no "contract" to hold them to.

To use the real estate example, it's like demanding you take possession of a house for sale because you saw a sign on the front lawn and you have the cash. You agree that would be unreasonable if the landlord refused to sell it to you and didn't sign anything? (Assuming the reason for no sale wasn't due to race religion etc).
link to original post

I assume there are specific laws when it comes to real estate. The problem I see in general is using old laws in modern times.
link to original post

By old laws I assume you mean the common law. Contract common laws are such that their age makes them MORE important not less. Marriage contracts have to be in writing and I don't bring that up flippantly, marriage contracts officially fall under the contract law cited in the court case. Real estate, marriage, etc. It covers a lot of ground.

Law is about application. The new isn't innovative. It's not like a computer world where old goes out the window.

With law you keep sanity by saying a particular maxim was decided the same way for a a few decades or hundreds of years so that's how it works. Not saying ignore all that, the judge thinks it should be a different and new world. That's not how the courts work.

And practicably, that's what you want. If you find some reason to test a Casinos right to throw you out, an actual legal right proven over and over again, you wouldn't want to argue the case citing precedent and then have the judge say, "meh, precedent schmecedent, we live in modern society, forget what you proven, we go my way"

I could see where maxims related to national television advertising have been in place for hundreds of years and should be maintained.

Quote: Mission146

I could see where maxims related to national television advertising have been in place for hundreds of years and should be maintained.
link to original post

You don't have to rewrite contract law because of new technology.

The concept of a contract needing to be in writing has nothing to do with the form of delivery.

A carnival Barker or a national advertising campaign on television. The contract law application would be the same.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

I could see where maxims related to national television advertising have been in place for hundreds of years and should be maintained.
link to original post

You don't have to rewrite contract law because of new technology.

The concept of a contract needing to be in writing has nothing to do with the form of delivery.

A carnival Barker or a national advertising campaign on television. The contract law application would be the same.
link to original post

Are there no laws regarding technology? Utah, for example, specifically made an addendum to their gambling prohibition in the state to include online gambling.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

I could see where maxims related to national television advertising have been in place for hundreds of years and should be maintained.
link to original post

You don't have to rewrite contract law because of new technology.

The concept of a contract needing to be in writing has nothing to do with the form of delivery.

A carnival Barker or a national advertising campaign on television. The contract law application would be the same.
link to original post

Are there no laws regarding technology? Utah, for example, specifically made an addendum to their gambling prohibition in the state to include online gambling.
link to original post

Of course they add laws as new tech comes into play.

But that would be specifically tailored to the new tech. Not something already covered.

You are suggesting that television required a new definition of contract law? That the current contract law that states an item of such a large price as the Harrier jet didn't or shouldn't include television advertisements?

No need to write, rewrite or add laws for every application of every facet of every new burgeoning technology.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

I could see where maxims related to national television advertising have been in place for hundreds of years and should be maintained.
link to original post

You don't have to rewrite contract law because of new technology.

The concept of a contract needing to be in writing has nothing to do with the form of delivery.

A carnival Barker or a national advertising campaign on television. The contract law application would be the same.
link to original post

Are there no laws regarding technology? Utah, for example, specifically made an addendum to their gambling prohibition in the state to include online gambling.
link to original post

Sadly, Nevada still doesn't allow most forms of online gambling.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

I could see where maxims related to national television advertising have been in place for hundreds of years and should be maintained.
link to original post

You don't have to rewrite contract law because of new technology.

The concept of a contract needing to be in writing has nothing to do with the form of delivery.

A carnival Barker or a national advertising campaign on television. The contract law application would be the same.
link to original post

Yes, contract law DOES need to be updated because of new technology, and the form of the contract and delivery are important. The updates can be via the courts ("common law"/precedent), or the legislature.

Also, contracts don't necessarily have to be in writing. Those covered by the Statue of Frauds (or the UCC equivalent) do.

Quote: UP84

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Mission146

I could see where maxims related to national television advertising have been in place for hundreds of years and should be maintained.
link to original post

You don't have to rewrite contract law because of new technology.

The concept of a contract needing to be in writing has nothing to do with the form of delivery.

A carnival Barker or a national advertising campaign on television. The contract law application would be the same.
link to original post

Also, contracts don't necessarily have to be in writing. Those covered by the Statue of Frauds (or the UCC equivalent) do.
link to original post

That's literally what I pointed out.

The judge in the Pepsi case pointed to the Statute of Frauds contract law, determined this fell under that law and that it required a written contract.

I never said all contracts need to be in writing. I say this one did as do other forms that fall under the contract law you cited "statute of Frauds".

It's really frustrating when people read half of what I write and then conclude I wrote something else.

EDIT: I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed an earlier post where I discussed the statute of Frauds the judge used in this Pepsi case.