IRAC Summary:
Issue: The issue in Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store is whether an advertisement published by the defendant, offering to sell fur coats worth $100 for $1 each to the first persons who come into the store, constitutes a valid, enforceable offer that can be accepted, thereby creating a contract.
Rule: An advertisement is generally considered an invitation to negotiate rather than a binding offer. However, an exception occurs when the language of the advertisement indicates a clear, definite, and explicit offer that leaves nothing open for negotiation. Also, an offer can be accepted by performance, resulting in a unilateral contract.
Application: In this case, the plaintiff, Lefkowitz, argued that the store’s advertisement was a clear, definite, and explicit offer that he accepted by being the first person to come to the store and properly indicate his intent to purchase the fur coats. The Great Minneapolis Surplus Store refused to sell the fur coats at the advertised price, arguing that the advertisement was not an offer but an invitation to negotiate. The court examined the language and terms of the advertisement and found that it constituted a binding offer that could be accepted by performance, as it specified the number of coats available, the price, and the time the offer was open.
Conclusion: The court concluded that the advertisement was a binding offer, which Lefkowitz accepted by being the first to arrive at the store, and the store was therefore obliged to sell the coats at the advertised price. Lefkowitz was entitled to damages for breach of contract.
Detailed IRAC Outline:
I. Issue
A. Whether a unilateral contract was formed between Lefkowitz and Great Minneapolis Surplus Store when he responded to a specific advertisement.
II. Rule
A. General principles of contract law hold that advertisements are invitations to offer or negotiate rather than offers themselves.
B. Exceptions to the general rule exist where the language of the advertisement is clear, definite, and explicit, leaving no room for negotiations.
C. A unilateral contract is formed when there is an offer that requires performance for acceptance, and such performance is completed.
III. Application
A. Facts
1. The Great Minneapolis Surplus Store published an advertisement in a newspaper stating: “Saturday 9 A.M. sharp, 3 brand new fur coats, worth to $100.00, first come first served, $1.00 each.”
2. Lefkowitz was the first person to arrive at the store, with the intention to purchase the coats according to the advertisement.
3. The store refused to sell the coats to Lefkowitz, alleging the deal was intended for women only, although no such gender specification was present in the advertisement.
B. Analysis
1. The court found that the advertisement contained a clear, definite, explicit, and unambiguous offer that was communicated to the public, including Lefkowitz.
2. By showing up first as required by the terms of the advertisement, Lefkowitz performed the necessary act to accept the offer.
3. The store’s argument that the offer was meant only for women was not supported by the language of the advertisement.
4. The store’s failure to honor the advertisement’s terms once Lefkowitz performed the necessary act constituted a breach of contract.
C. Discussion
1. The court differentiated between general advertisements and those that are specific as to the quantity of items offered and capable of immediate acceptance.
2. The ruling emphasized that specificity in terms leads to an enforceable offer in the context of advertising.
IV. Conclusion
A. The court held that a contract was created when Lefkowitz performed the conditions of acceptance as specified by the advertisement.
B. Since Lefkowitz was willing and able to comply with the terms of the offer, he was entitled to performance from the Great Minneapolis Surplus Store or damages for the store’s failure to sell the fur coats at the advertised price.