Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store

Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1957 · Contracts

Contractsofferadvertisementdefinite termsacceptanceadvertisement as offerclear definite explicit termsfirst come first served

Facts

Defendant published newspaper advertisements offering certain fur items for sale at $1 on a "first come first served" basis at 9 a.m. sharp. On each relevant Saturday, plaintiff was the first to present himself at the proper counter and offered to pay the advertised price. Defendant refused to sell, first asserting a house rule that the offer was for women only and later stating that plaintiff knew its house rules. The trial court awarded damages only for the black lapin stole advertised as worth $139.50, less the $1 price, because the value of the coats was too speculative.

Issue

Whether defendant's newspaper advertisement for the black lapin stole was an offer rather than merely an invitation to make an offer, and if so whether plaintiff accepted it by being first to appear and tendering the stated price. The court also considered whether defendant could rely on an unadvertised house rule limiting the offer to women.

Rule

A newspaper advertisement may constitute an offer if it is clear, definite, and explicit, leaves nothing open for negotiation, and promises performance in positive terms in return for something requested. When such an offer is accepted according to its terms, the advertiser may not afterward impose new or arbitrary conditions not contained in the published offer, though the offer may be modified before acceptance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A furniture shop in Cleveland publishes: "Saturday 8:00 a.m. sharp — 1 oak writing desk, $10, first come first served." Nina Patel arrives at 7:59 a.m., is first at the designated counter when the store opens, and tenders $10. The manager refuses to sell because he says the ad was only meant to "draw traffic."

Under the majority rule, is the advertisement most likely an enforceable offer that Nina accepted?

Explanation. A public advertisement may constitute an offer when it promises performance in positive terms in return for requested action and is clear, definite, and explicit, leaving nothing open for negotiation. Here, the item, price, time, and method of acceptance—first come first served—are all specified. Nina accepted by being first and tendering the stated price, so the store could not refuse merely because it later characterized the ad as promotional. (Derived from Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (1957).)