AI-Powered Case Briefing
The Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store case brief examines when advertisements constitute binding offers rather than mere invitations to negotiate. This landmark contract law case is essential for understanding offer formation and definite terms in contract law.
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, 251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689 (1957)
Great Minneapolis Surplus Store published newspaper advertisements offering fur coats and stoles for sale. The first ad stated "Saturday 9 AM Sharp, 3 Brand New Fur Coats, Worth to $100.00, First Come First Served $1 Each." The second ad offered "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 Stole, Beautiful, worth $139.50... $1.00, First Come First Served." Lefkowitz was the first customer to arrive both Saturdays and demanded the advertised items for $1 each. The store refused to sell to him, claiming the offers were intended for women only, though this limitation was not stated in the advertisements.
Do newspaper advertisements with specific terms and quantities constitute binding offers that can be accepted by anyone meeting the stated conditions?
An advertisement constitutes a binding offer rather than an invitation to negotiate when it contains definite terms, specifies the quantity of goods available, and uses language indicating that immediate acceptance will create a binding agreement. The advertisement must be sufficiently definite and certain to constitute an offer that can be accepted.
The court held that the advertisements constituted valid offers because they contained definite terms (specific items, specific prices, specific quantities) and the phrase "first come, first served" indicated intent to be bound by the first acceptance. Since Lefkowitz was the first to accept and the store's unstated limitation to women was not part of the offer, a binding contract was formed.
The court reasoned that while most advertisements are invitations to negotiate, these particular advertisements were different because they contained all essential terms: specific merchandise, exact prices, and limited quantities. The phrase "first come, first served" demonstrated intent to be bound by the first person who met the conditions. The court rejected the store's argument that the offers were limited to women because this limitation was not stated in the advertisements and could not be implied. The objective theory of contracts requires that offers be judged by what a reasonable person would understand from the language used.
This case established important precedent for determining when advertisements constitute binding offers. It demonstrates that advertisements with definite terms, limited quantities, and language indicating immediate acceptance can create enforceable contracts. The case is frequently cited in modern consumer protection and advertising law, and it reinforces the objective theory of contracts in commercial transactions.
This case is crucial for understanding when advertisements constitute binding offers versus mere invitations to negotiate. It teaches students the importance of definite terms in contract formation and demonstrates how the objective theory of contracts applies to commercial advertising, making it essential for understanding modern contract law principles.
The key rule established that advertisements constitute binding offers when they contain definite terms, specify quantities, and use language indicating immediate acceptance will create a contract. The case also reinforced that unstated limitations or conditions cannot be implied into offers—all terms must be clearly expressed.
Professors use this case to teach offer formation, the distinction between offers and invitations to negotiate, and the objective theory of contracts. It's often used in hypotheticals about modern advertising, online sales, and consumer protection to help students understand when advertisements create binding legal obligations.
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store remains a landmark case in contract law, establishing clear guidelines for when advertisements constitute binding offers. The case's emphasis on definite terms and objective interpretation continues to influence modern advertising law and consumer protection, making it essential reading for law students and practitioners alike.