Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F.Supp.2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), more widely known as the Pepsi Points Case, is a famous case tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1996, in which the plaintiff, John Leonard, sued PepsiCo, Inc. in an effort to enforce an "offer" to redeem 7,000,000 Pepsi Points for an AV-8 Harrier II jump jet, which Pepsi had shown in a televised commercial (the plaintiff did not in fact collect 7,000,000 Pepsi Points, but instead sent a check for $700,008.50 as permitted by the contest rules. Leonard had 15 existing points, paid $0.10 a point for the remaining 6,999,985 points and a $10 shipping and handling fee). The claim alleged both breach of contract and fraud. The case was finally decided in 1999. Among other claims made, Leonard claimed that a federal judge was incapable of deciding on the matter, and that instead the decision had to be made by a jury consisting of members of "the Pepsi generation," to whom the advertisement would allegedly constitute an offer.[1]

The court, presided over by Judge Kimba Wood, rejected Leonard's claims and denied recovery on three grounds.

  1. It was found that the advertisement featuring the jet did not constitute an offer.
  2. The court found that even if the advertisement was an offer, no reasonable person could have believed that the company seriously intended to convey a jet worth $22 million for under a million dollars.
  3. The value of the alleged contract meant that it fell under the provisions of the statute of frauds, but the Statute's requirement for writing between the parties was not fulfilled, so a contract had not been formed.

  1. ^ Epstein, David G. Making and Doing Deals: Contracts in Context, 2nd Ed., 2006. Page 55.
  • Morales, Ann C (2000). Pepsi's Harrier Jet Commercial Was Not a Binding Offer to Contract. Academy of Marketing Science. Journal, 28(2), 318-320.

Advanced Search
Included Web Search Engines


Safe Search

close

Top Matching Results

Occasionally Search.com will highlight specialized results that are based on the context of your query. Examples of specialized results include specific links to news, images, or video.

Top Matching Results may highlight information from other Search.com pages, content from the CNET Network of sites, or third party content. The listings are based purely on relevance. Search.com does not receive payment for listings in this section but our partners that provide this data may get paid for listing these products.

Sponsored Links

This section contains paid listings which have been purchased by companies that want to have their sites appear for specific search terms and related content. These listings are administered, sorted and maintained by a third party and are not endorsed by Search.com.

Search Results

Search.com sends your search query to several search engines at one time and integrates the results into one list which has been sorted by relevance using Search.com's proprietary algorithm. You can customize the list of search engines included in your metasearch from the preferences.

The search engines that are used in your metasearch may allow companies to pay to have their Web sites included within the results. To view the Paid Inclusion policy for a specific search engine, please visit their Web site. Search.com does not accept payment or share revenue with any search engine partner for listings in this section.