Summary
Dispute occurred between John Leonard and the Pepsi Company about a promotion that was done by this company. The consumers were advised to collect Pepsi points from the marked packages of Pepsi. The business advertised the promotion through the television commercial. John Leonard saw the advert through the television commercial and claimed that the commercial catalogue contained the Harriet jet. He did his best to accumulate the points so that he may receive the brand new jet. However these dreams never come to pass because, when he thought he had accumulated enough points and claimed the jet, the company resisted. Also when his counsel sent a letter to the company to make them issue Leonard with a jet, the company did not listen to this instead, they decided to sue him. According to the law, the court pointed out that, a person in his right senses cannot be swayed with an advert and accept that whatever is indicated or said are the facts. Therefore, in regard to law, Leonard was an offendant because even the company catalogue did not contain any sign from the company. The court ordered him to pay the legal fee or withdraw his voluntary dismissal and continue with the mitigation. The court concluded that an advertisement that has no summary judgment is just an offer and that it does not lead to any contract (Lindsay, 2000).
The principles associated with the consumer protection laws
Objective reasonable person standard
Objective principle of contract law is the law whereby a normal and reasonable person understand an offer as a joke, believes that it cannot be taken as an offer and it does form a contract .Additionally, if a reasonable person made a conclusion that the words and action of another party reveals an intention to be bound by a contract then such agreement should be enforceable ( Hoffner et al, 2010) . Therefore, a reasonable consumer should not rely on the advertisements statements as facts. According to the law, the exaggerated advertisement statements are just there to attract customers but in real sense, they are never true. For that reason, the advertisers are not bound to any claim by a reasonable individual .Consequently, Pepsi should not be required to provide the promised price in this contest because the advertisement they made was just a “puffery” which was just meant to attract customers but not the reality. However, a reasonable person like John Leonard thought it was the truth. John Leonard should have realized that Pepsi adverts were just “puffery” and that winning a Harriet jet was not realistic because the price option was not indicated.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Statue of frauds
According to this principle, a writing that shows an evidence for sales is considered a formal requirement in the sale of goods of more than 500 dollars. The law recognizes such contract because the real transaction is involved in writing rather than the orally made agreement Ayub, Yusoff and Halim, 2012) . So it is a clear evident that Pepsi advertisement was a “puffery” and John Leonard should not demand the Harriet jet from the Pepsi company since there was no any contract signed in writing between him and the company.
Rewards as offers
This is a principle that allows the reward to be given to anyone who performs the condition of offer before it is retracted. It do not create binding contracts hence requires each party to negotiate (Kadir, 2013). John Leonard should realize that Pepsi advert did not indicate the price of the Harriet jet and that, there was no lawful contract made between him and the company. For that reason, he should not hold the company accountable for any action made .However, in case both of them could have involved in any form of bargaining to form a contract, then Leonard could have peacefully won the case.
How court should solve a matter concerning Harriet jet, Pepsi and John Leonard
The court should solve the matter by advising Leonard to apologize to the Pepsi Company because according to the law, he is the offendant. Leonard in his right senses could not have thought that the company could afford to give away the Harriet jet as part of its promotion. Also, there is no agreement whether written or verbal that the court received between the company and Leonard. Additionally, there was no form or agreement bearing Pepsi signature that indicates the company was to give away the jet. Therefore, the court should just advise Leonard to apologize to the company so that the company may drop the case against him; this is the amicable way of solving this case.
What should John Leonard receive for his trouble?
John Leonard struggled to attain the points which he thought could enable him win a brand new Harriet jet but this dream did not come to pass instead the Pepsi company sued him when he demanded for the jet. As a matter of fact, the company could have considered giving him another reward that fits his points instead of letting him go away with no reward despite of his points.
References
Ayub, Z. A., Yusoff, Z. M., & Halim, F. (2012). Marketing and online advertisement: An overview of legal implication in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Society , 10 (2), 83.
Hoffner, Y., Field, S., Grefen, P., & Ludwig, H. (2010). Contract-driven creation and operation of virtual enterprises. Computer networks , 37 (2), 111-136.
Kadir, R. (2013). Rules of advertisement in an electronic age. International Journal of Law and Management , 55 (1), 42-54.
Lindsay E. Cohen (2000).The choice of a new generation: Can advertisement create a binding contract?Inc.nl.
