Great Minneapolis Surplus Store v. Lefkowitz (fur give away case)

Advertisements are not usually offers because they don't show adequate
intent to be bound (no words of commitment), not because there is a
consideration problem.  If there is a commitment (promise to sell or
promise to give away tacos) in sufficiently definite terms, then the
only question is whether the recipient of the advertisement gave
consideration.  In the Lefkowitz case the phrase "first come first
serve" made it clear that the store was bargaining for people to come
get in line early in the morning.  And, actually the furs weren't given
away, they were $1 each to the first 3 in line.

If a contract doesn't exist in the taco case because of lack of
consideration, then certainly there is a valid promissory estoppel claim
(reliance is waiting in line, watching the game etc.

The player is legally obligated to play the game including stealing
bases under his contract with his team/MLB.


________________________________

Lizbeth G. Ellis
Department Head
Department of Finance
College of Business
New Mexico State University
P.O. Box 30001, MSC 3FIN
Las Cruces, NM  88003

505-646-3201 (phone)
505-646-2820 (fax)
[log in to unmask] 


-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Petty, Ross
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 12:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Free taco = contract?

I like both analyses.  As Susan suggests that contract could be between
Major League Baseball and Taco Bell --World Series promotion time in
exchange for free tacos to those who know about the deal.
Alternatively, I recall an old legal case involving free furs given to
the first three customers in line on a particular day.  One of the first
three was a guy and the store refused to give him a fur arguing it
intended the promotion for women.  As I recall, the court found that
although most ads do not constitute offers to do business, this one did
because it was very specific about what the customer would have to do to
obtain the fur.  Since the customer in question did those things, his
performance constituted acceptance by action of the unilateral contract
offer.  His performance also constituted his consideration --He went to
the store early being one of the first three and  waited in line for it
to open.  The court noted that if the store wanted to limit the offer to
women, it needed to say so.   

Ross D. Petty
Professor of Marketing Law
Babson College
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan Park
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Free taco = contract?

I just taught consideration in class today!

Here's another idea - consideration doesn't have to come from the
person who's receiving the benefit under the contract.  So if the
baseball player steals a base - (assuming the player isn't otherwise
legallly obligated to steal the base) is that valid consideration given
in exchange for the taco?

Susan Park
Special Lecturer, Legal Studies in Business
College of Business & Economics
Boise State University
Boise, ID 83725
(208) 426-3070


>>> Terence Lau <[log in to unmask]> 10/30/2007 11:49 AM
>>>
A student asked me today if Taco Bell's free taco giveaway from 2 pm to
5 
pm today is a contract or a gift (see 
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/fan_forum/tacobell/).  My initial read is that
this 
is a gift, since consumers have provided no consideration for the free

taco (the free tacos are conditioned on a base being stolen in the
World 
Series).  It's also not a contract because promotional materials such
as 
advertisements are not offers to contract.  On the other hand, driving
to 
a taco bell and waiting in line may be consideration, and is certainly

legal detriment.  Additionally, in looking at the terms and conditions
of 
the promotion, I dare say that Taco Bell may have created a contract, 
because the T&C include language such as "by participating, consumers 
agree..." and including waiver of liability, which is adequate 
consideration to support a contract.  Does anyone else have a different

read on this?  My take is that Taco Bell is offering a unilateral
contract 
and must perform by giving away free tacos, subject to the limitations
it 
has imposed in its T&C (limit one per customer, management can refuse,

etc.)

_____
Terence Lau
Assistant Professor, Business Law
Management and Marketing Department
University of Dayton
[log in to unmask]