John D.R. Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc. - Essay Example

In the case of John D.R Leonard, who is the plaintiff against PepsiCo. Inc., the defendant in the year 1999, the plaintiff made a request for the advertised Harrier Jet through the submission of Pepsi points that he had gained and provided a check for the remaining amount. PepsiCo., the defendant, wrote a letter to Mr. Leonard where it explained that the Harrier Jet represented a humorous part of the commercial, and it did not represent part of the advertised promotion. As a result, the court dismissed the case since the advertisement was not perceived as a unilateral offer, and the commercial’s overall nature was aimed at being humorous (Cohen, 2000).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The Court’s Reasoning

There exist two prevalent rationales for the decision made by the court. One of the reasons is that the commercial could not be taken into consideration as a unilateral offer as the primary aim of including the Harrier Jet was to develop an advertisement that was enjoyable (Cohen, 2000). Solan (2007) argues that a unilateral contract is made up of a promise and an act that leads to a second act, especially by the party that makes the offer. Even though PepsiCo, Inc. made an advertisement for Harrier Jet, such an ad could not be perceived as a promise. It could only be seen as an invitation to make an offer. It is argued that if an advertisement is to be considered an offer, it should possess a certain language that compels commitment of the advertiser to make an offer or needs to depict a language that functions to invite a consumer to act in the absence of further communication particularly between the two parties. Consequently, the above advertisement in the case could hardly be perceived as an offer as there was a lack of particular language that makes the specific ad become an official offer.

The second reason is that the commercial’s humorous nature would not be an indication that PepsiCo, Inc. was giving away a Harrier Jet during the promotion period (Cohen, 2000). Even when the ad could be perceived as a valid offer, the commercial’s nature made clear evidence that Harriet Jet would be perceived as a joke.

Christian Worldview

I concur with the decision made by Kimba M. Wood, who is the district judge and favored claims made by Pepsi., Inc. Solan (2007) notes that the law usually recognizes any mass advertisement as being an invitation for a consumer to ultimately make an offer to a given seller with the aim of purchasing the goods for a particular price. In the case of PepsiCo., Inc. commercial, there was a lack of a particular commitment to invite consumers to make offers for Harrier Jet. In general, the aim of the commercial was to request consumers to ensure they collected Pepsi points for Harrier Jet. It was mainly aimed at encouraging consumers to look for the Pepsi points, which would enable them to choose a particular prize from the catalog. As a result, the court’s ruling is considered the correct decision.

From a Christian worldview, the court case would be perceived as involving integrity. The question that one would ultimately ask is whether PepsiCo., Inc had promised to offer Harriet Jet in the form of a prize during the promotion. In the Holy Bible, Paul wrote to the Colossians and asked them not to lie to one another (NIV, Colossians 3:9). In the above case, PepsiCo. did not act in a deceitful manner or did not attempt to develop a false advertisement. The evidence provide depicted that the company merely attempted to promote their Pepsi Stuff marketing through the use of a witty commercial.

References

Cohen, L. E. (2000). The Choice of a New Generation: Can an Advertisement Create a Binding Contract? Mo. L. Rev., 65, 553.

Solan, L. M. (2007). Contract as Agreement. Notre Dame L. Rev., 83, 353.