Leonard V Pepsico Case Study

1489 Words6 Pages
1_
Leonard v.Pepsico,INC.
88 F.supp.2d116(S.D.N.Y 1997)
WOOD,J.
In this case PepsiCo doing a promotional campaign in which consumer were invited to acquire “Pepsi points” by purchasing Pepsi product and exchange them for “Pepsi stuff” and harrier jet was shown in the end of commercial and said that harrier jet was 7000,000 Pepsi points. After a few second later the voice appears before ending the commercial “Drink more Pepsi-Get more points”. Plaintiff saw the commercial and decided to collect Pepsi points.
When he saw list of stuff then he saw Harrier jet is not include the Harrier Jet. The catalog said that merchandise could only be ordered via original order form. Leonard collects 7000,000 points which were required for the purchase of
…show more content…
2_ 256 carlill v. carbolic smoke ball company In the court of appeal CA
Facts:
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a product named as "smoke ball" which claimed to be a cure or treatment for influenza and a number of other diseases. The company gives advertisement claiming that it will pay £100 for that person who got sick with influenza using its product according the instruction of Advertisement.
After watching the ad Carlill (P) purchased a ball and used it three times daily for nearly two months until she contracted the flu on 17 January 1892. She claimed £100 from the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. Carbolic Smoke Ball refused to pay and Carlill sued for damages arising from breach of contract. Judgment for 100 pounds was entered for Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball appealed.
Issues:
1_Can one makes a contract with the whole world?
2_There was no notification of acceptance.
3. The wording was too un-specified to constitute an offer since there was no stated time limit as to catching the flu.
4. Was there any
…show more content…
The trial court set rent at $125 per month. parties cannot be hold upon this essential rental term of lease. Rental in ordinary lease is very uncomplicated item. Number of dollar involve lessee will pay. Stability in business transaction it should be fixed. secondly as an original preposition rules of law the provision we have quoted. on its face it neither fixes the rent nor furnish a positive key to its establishment. The language is used is equivocal. This observation should resolve because it is not simple.The lease renewal option has been treated as different ordinary contract. In this reason consider to proper examine this question in depth.(Williston on contract sec 37) an agreement in order must be definite to enable a court to give it an exact meaning .like contract for a lease provision for a renewal must be render it and enforceable. Indefiniteness, uncertainty of a provision will render it void unless b/w parties. Certainty is required will enable to determine by court. The extension and renewal may be left described method. landlord and tenant sec965) an example of an appropriate method by which non fixed could be determine .lessee agree to pay amount equal to one cent per gallon of gasoline delivered to said station. Chancellor cited this case as authorative on the issue but we do not delivered. Parties are not agrees. If they had agree than specific method by

More about Leonard V Pepsico Case Study

Open Document