LEFKOWITZ v. GREAT MINNEAPOLIS SURPLUS STORE 86 N.W.2d 689
(Minn.1957)
The Great Minneapolis Surplus Store published the following
advertisement in a Minneapolis newspaper:
SATURDAY 9 AM. 2 BRAND NEW Pastel MINK 3-SKIN SCARFS Selling
for $89.50
Out they go SATURDAY. Each ......... $1.00
1 BLACK LAPIN( Rabbit)
STOLE . . .
$139.50........$1.OO FIRST COME FIRST SERVED
Beautiful,
worth
Mr Lefkowitz was the first to present himself on Saturday and
demanded the Lapin stole for one dollar. The store refused to sell to
him because of a "house rule" that the offer was intended for
women only. Lefkowitz sued the store and was awarded $138.50 as
damages. The store appealed.
MURPHY, JUSTICE.......The defendant relies principally on Craft v.
Elder & Johnston Co.. . .
On the facts before us we are concerned with whether the
advertisement constituted an offer, and, if so, whether the plaintiffs
conduct constituted an acceptance.
There are numerous authorities which hold that a particular
advertisement in a newspaper or circular letter relating to a sale of
articles may be construed by the court as constituting an offer,
acceptance of which would complete a contract. . . .
The test of whether a binding obligation may originate in
advertisements addressed to the general public is "whether the
facts show that some performance was promised in positive terms in
return for something requested." 1 Williston, Contracts rev. ed.) §
27.
The authorities above cited emphasize that, where the offer is clear,
definite and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it
constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract.
. . . Whether in any individual instance a newspaper advertisement
is an offer rather. than an invitation to make an offer depends on
the legal intention of the parties and the surrounding circumstances.
. . . We are of the view on the facts before us that the offer by the
defendant of the sale of the Lapin fur was clear, definite, and
explicit, and left nothing open for negotiation. ...
The defendant contends that the offer was modified by a `house
rule" to the effect that only women were qualified to receive the
bargains advertised.
The advertisement contained no such
restriction. This objection may be disposed of briefly by stating
that, while an advertiser has the right at any time before acceptance
to modify the offer, he does not have the right, after acceptance, to
impose new or arbitrary conditions not contained in the published
offer. . .
******************************************************
Although this is an American case, and not binding on our courts,
the ratio of Justice Murphy does help clarify the legal thinking
regarding advertisements and when they become offers.
1. Who is Murphy, Justice and what is his role? Who is the
original Plaintiff in this case? Who is the original defendant?
Which party, the Plaintiff or the defendant, appealed the case?
Why do you think they did this?
2. What does Murphy J mean by “The defendant relies
principally on Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co”? What is this as
example of in common law? If Craft v Elder & Johnson Co was
decided in a higher court than the court hearing this case,
what will Murphy J have to do?
3. What is the legal issue in this case. Quote from Murphy J to
support your answer.
4. According to this judge what is the purpose of the test taken
from Williston, Contracts rev. ed.) § 27
5. What are the characteristics of a statement that will make it
an offer?
6. The judge found that the advertisement was an offer. Make a
list of the statements from the advertisement that make it an
offer.
7. The last paragraph explains a rule of offer that the offeror has
the right to do? What is that rule? But the paragraph also
goes on to put limits on that right. What are these limits?
8. If this had been an English case, what precedent case could
the Justice apply to reach the same decision?