FACTS: John Leonard saw an ad for a PepsiCo promotion program that involved saving Pepsi Points in order to obtain merchandise such as hats, jackets and other personal items. The ad showed a young man getting a Harrier Jet with Pepsi Points and then taking the jet to school. The screen blinked the number of Pepsi points for items shown and when the jet appeared, the screen blinked 7,000,000 points. Leonard saved the Pepsi Points and the cash equivalent and tried to redeem them for the jet and Pepsi refused. Leonard filed suit alleging that Pepsi’s ad was an offer which he had accepted. Pepsi said the ad was not an offer. DECISIONS BELOW: The court granted summary judgment to Pepsi. Facts Pepsico (D) ran a promotional campaign in which consumers were invited to acquire “Pepsi Points” by purchasing Pepsi products, and exchange them for “Pepsi Stuff”. Leonard (P) received a catalog for use in redeeming “Pepsi Points”. Television advertisements featured merchandise available through the promotion including a Harrier Jet. Leonard saw the commercials and contended that the commercial constituted a valid offer to acquire the jet for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points. Leonard obtained a catalog and noticed that the order form did not include the Harrier Jet. The catalog stated thatFACTS: John Leonard saw an ad for a PepsiCo promotion program that involved saving Pepsi Points in order to obtain merchandise such as hats, jackets and other personal items. The ad showed a young man getting a Harrier Jet with Pepsi Points and then taking the jet to school. The screen blinked the number of Pepsi points for items shown and when the jet appeared, the screen blinked 7,000,000 points.

Leonard saved the Pepsi Points and the cash equivalent and tried to redeem them for the jet and Pepsi refused. Leonard filed suit alleging that Pepsi’s ad was an offer which he had accepted. Pepsi said the ad was not an offer.

DECISIONS BELOW: The court granted summary judgment to Pepsi.
Facts

Pepsico (D) ran a promotional campaign in which consumers were invited to acquire “Pepsi Points” by purchasing Pepsi products, and exchange them for “Pepsi Stuff”. Leonard (P) received a catalog for use in redeeming “Pepsi Points”. Television advertisements featured merchandise available through the promotion including a Harrier Jet. Leonard saw the commercials and contended that the commercial constituted a valid offer to acquire the jet for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points.

Leonard obtained a catalog and noticed that the order form did not include the Harrier Jet. The catalog stated that merchandise could only be ordered via original order form. The form also indicated that additional points could be purchased for ten cents each. Leonard raised $700,000 in order to purchase the 7,000,000 points needed to acquire the jet.

Leonard submitted a completed order form together with a check and wrote in “1 Harrier Jet” at the bottom of the form. Leonard indicated that the check was for the express purpose of purchasing the points needed to obtain a new Harrier jet as advertised in the commercial.

Pepsico rejected the submission and returned the check, noting in its rejection that the jet was not in the catalog and thus could not acquired through the promotion. Pepsico apologized for any misunderstanding and informed Leonard that the commercial was intended to be humorous and entertaining. Leonard sued when Pepsico refused a formal demand to honor its offer. Pepsico moved for summary judgment.
ISSUE ON APPEAL: Did Pepsi’s ad constitute an offer?

DECISION: No. The ad was a joke. There were rules and instructions that went along with the ad. And the contract would have had to have been in writing and it was not.

1. When does the court think an offer was made?

2. Why is whether the ad is funny an important issue?

3. Does the commercial satisfy the statue of frauds? Explain.
4. Will Mr. Leonard get his Harrier jet? Why or why not?