86 N.W.2d 689
The Great Minneapolis Surplus Store published an advertisement in a Minneapolis newspaper on April 6, 1956, offering three brand new fur coats worth to one hundred dollars for one dollar each on a first come first served basis at nine a.m. sharp.1 On April 13, 1956, the store published a second advertisement offering two brand new pastel mink three-skin scarfs for one dollar each and one black lapin stole worth one hundred thirty-nine dollars and fifty cents for one dollar on a first come first served basis.2
Lefkowitz presented himself at the appropriate counter in the store on each of the Saturdays following the publications.3 He was the first to do so, demanding the advertised items and indicating his readiness to pay the one-dollar price.4 The store refused to sell the merchandise to Lefkowitz on both occasions, citing a house rule that the offers were intended for women only on the first visit and stating that he knew the house rules on the second visit.5
Lefkowitz brought suit in the Municipal Court of Minneapolis, which awarded him one hundred thirty-eight dollars and fifty cents in damages for breach of contract after disallowing his claim for the fur coats due to speculative value but granting judgment for the value of the lapin stole.6 The store appealed from the order denying its motion for amended findings of fact or a new trial.7
Whether the defendant's newspaper advertisements constituted offers that could be accepted to form contracts?8
The test of whether a binding obligation may originate in advertisements addressed to the general public is whether the facts show that some performance was promised in positive terms in return for something requested.9 Where the offer is clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract.10
Yes. The Great Minneapolis Surplus Store published an advertisement in a Minneapolis newspaper on April 6, 1956, offering three brand new fur coats worth to one hundred dollars for one dollar each on a first come first served basis at nine a.m. sharp. On April 13, 1956, the store published a second advertisement offering two brand new pastel mink three-skin scarfs for one dollar each and one black lapin stole worth one hundred thirty-nine dollars and fifty cents for one dollar on a first come first served basis. The advertisements were clear, definite, and explicit, and left nothing open for negotiation.11
Lefkowitz having successfully managed to be the first one to appear at the seller's place of business to be served, as requested by the advertisement, and having offered the stated purchase price of the article, he was entitled to performance on the part of the defendant.12
The defendant's newspaper advertisements constituted offers that could be accepted to form contracts.13
Whether the defendant could impose a house rule limiting the offers to women after the plaintiff had presented himself at the store ready to purchase the advertised items?14
While an advertiser has the right at any time before acceptance to modify his offer, he does not have the right, after acceptance, to impose new or arbitrary conditions not contained in the published offer.15
No. The advertisement contained no restriction that the offers were intended for women only.16 Lefkowitz presented himself at the store ready to purchase the advertised items before the store attempted to impose the house rule.17 The store refused to sell after the acceptance had occurred by Lefkowitz being the first to appear.18 The defendant could not impose the house rule after acceptance.19
The defendant could not impose a house rule limiting the offers to women after the plaintiff had presented himself at the store ready to purchase the advertised items.20