Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. 86 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1957). Facts The case Lefkowitz versus the Great Minneapolis Surplus store addresses the common misconception of offers and contracts that can appear in advertising. Lefkowitz, the plaintiff, noticed an advertisement in a local store that offered the sale of fur coats that were valued at one hundred dollars. The discounted price, which was a dollar, was stated in the advertisement along with the statement of first come first serve. The advertisement was located in eth newspaper on April 6, 1956. About a week later, the Great Minneapolis Surplus Store advertised the same deal again in the same newspaper, but with the sale of pastel scarves along with a mink stole. The plaintiff Lefkowitz did as the advertisement instructed on both occasions and was the first individual that could have been served and received the discounted items for a dollar. During both occasions, the defendant refused to honor the advertisements that were located in the paper and thus refused to sell the offered merchandise to the plaintiff. During trial, the defendant chose to stand firmly on the case of Craft vs. Elder and Johnston Company as well as Johnson vs. Capital City Ford. Johnson vs. Capital City Ford addresses the advertisements relating to the purchase and sale of automobiles in which acceptance of a proposed offer may in fact constitute a contract which can be legally enforced. This case, just as in Lefkowitz vs. the Great Minneapolis Surplus Store questions the formalities of offers that can be contained in advertisements. Clear advertisements that leave no room for negotiation thereby allowing the formulation of a contract that comes in effect once accepted. It was stated during the case that the origin of an advertisement must be determined in order to conclude whether it can be classified as a simple invitation or an offer. At the trial of Lefkowitz vs. The Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, it was ultimately determined that due to characteristics of the advertisements the plaintiff was entitled to the fulfillment of the offer. The advertisement from the surplus store was clear and explicit all while leaving nothing open for negotiation. The court in conclusion held that Lefkowitz was entitled to the performance mentioned by the defendant because he served in full compliance with the terms of the advertisement as well as offering the purchase price stated. Damages were awarded to the plaintiff that were equal to the value stated in the advertisement. Issue The issue of the case lies in whether or not the advertisement published by the Great Minneapolis Surplus Store issued and denied an advertisement or an offer. Offers can be held under contractual obligations which would require one who issued and dishonor the promise to be held legally liable. The issue of the case also causes for the defendant to prove that the advertisement held some type of negotiable factors that would allow it to not be considered a contract. In summation the issue of the case lies in the various circumstances that constitutes an advertisement as an offer.
We will send an essay sample to you in 24 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.Get help with my paper