Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store – Case Brief
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, 251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689 (1957).
Facts: Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (D) published advertisements in a newspaper for a sale of fur coats, mink scarves, and a lapin stole. Each of the advertisements indicated that the sale items would be sold on a first come first served basis, stated the quantities of each item available, and stated that they would be sold for one dollar each. Lefkowitz (P) was the first customer to present himself and offer the one dollar price per the terms of the advertisement. D refused to sell the sale items to P and told him that according to the “house rules” the offer was intended for women only.
At trial, the court determined that the advertisement by D was clear, definite, and explicit and left nothing open for negotiation. The court held that P was entitled to performance by D because he complied with the terms of the advertisement and offered the stated purchase price. The court granted judgment in favor of P and awarded damages equal to the stated value in the advertisement for the mink stole minus the $1 purchase price. The court denied the claim on the coat, ruling that the value was too speculative. D appealed.
Issue: Does a newspaper advertisement constitute an offer where it is clear, definite, and explicit and leaves nothing open for negotiation?
Holding and Rule: Yes. Advertisements involving transactions in goods are offers when they invite particular action.
D contended that a newspaper advertisement constitutes a unilateral offer which may be withdrawn without notice. Advertisements had been construed as an invitation for an offer of sale, and that offer by a prospective purchaser could then be accepted or rejected by the seller when received. An advertisement construed in such a manner does not become a contract for sale until accepted by the seller, and the advertised terms could be modified or revoked.
The test is whether the facts show that some performance was promised in positive terms in return for something requested. Whether such an advertisement is an offer rather than an invitation to make an offer depends on the legal intention of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. As for the Lapin fur, the offer by D was clear, definite, explicit, and left nothing open to negotiation. While D has the right to modify his offer prior to acceptance, he cannot change his offer after acceptance.
Disposition: Affirmed.