Marshall v Purolator

Document Sample
Marshall v Purolator Powered By Docstoc
					Rhen Marshall, Inc. v. Purolator Filter Division Facts: (P) received an advertising circular from the (D) advertising an incentive for buying 100,000 pounds of purolator products. Rhen Marshal requested an order and upon receipt of the order, Purolator telephoned Marshall and stated that his order had not been accepted. Marshall contends that the circular was an offer for which he accepted. Rules: An advertisement is not an offer, merely and invitation to bargain or negotiate Issue: Can an advertisement taken as an offer be a binding contract? Reasoning: the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling stating that it was not an offer because an advertisement is not a valid contract in itself. An advertisement is an invitation to deal or negotiate.

Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Facts: the (D) advertised in a newspaper the sale of three fur coats for a dollar a piece and 1 Black Lapin Stole for one dollar. The (P) arrived at the store before anyone else and tried tio buy the fur coat. The Salesperson told him that the coats were only for sale to women. Upon the next offer he went to purchase the stole but he received the same result. Rules: An advertisement may be a binding obligation if the facts show that there was some performance was promised in return for something requested. An advertisement may be considered an offer that is binding if it is clear definite, leaves nothing open for negotiation, explicit, and is accepted by another party, thus making it a contract. Issue: Was a newspaper advertisement an offer that is binding? Reasoning: the court ruled that the lower court was correct that the offer was binding upon the acceptance of the (P). the advertisement met the standards and did not mention any store objections to whom the purchaser could be other than a person with a dollar.


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:516
posted:8/21/2007
language:English
pages:1
mrdildine mrdildine
About