What Is The Case Of Leonard V. Pepsico Commercial

In the 1996 case of Leonard v. PepsiCo, John Leonard is not entitled to the Harrier Jet that PepsiCo advertised in their Super Bowl commercial. Leonard is not entitled to the jet because any reasonable person would notice the intended puffery and jest that PepsiCo put into their commercial. In certain circumstances, there are legal issues that arise with advertising, in whether they are, or are not legally binding (Cohen, 2000). In the majority of cases, advertisements are a mere invitation to negotiate, and in the case of Leonard v. PepsiCo, it is just that (Cohen, 2000). Conversely, there are some rare cases that come about that an advertisement makes an offer which constitutes an enforceable contract (Cohen, 2000). It must be definite, explicit and clearly state details of the quantity available, the number available per person, and who could accept this offer (Cohen, 2000). Even if the PepsiCo commercial constitutes an offer, they would not be able to supply the Harrier Jet because it is not for use of civilians (CNN, 1996 ). PepsiCo has aired an advertising commercial in the 1996 Super Bowl. In the commercial, PepsiCo has stated that one can consume Pepsi products to attain “Pepsi-points” …show more content…
In response to that Leonard decided to hire an attorney because he felt he was entitled to the “offer” that PepsiCo was “offering” (Cohen, 2000). Leonard’s attorney then sent a letter to PepsiCo on his behalf demanding that PepsiCo is to transfer the Harrier Jet to their client (Leonard) in compliance with their offer that was aired on the commercial (Cohen, 2000). A month has passed with no response from PepsiCo, Leonard had taken it upon himself to write another letter to PepsiCo insisting that the jet must be transferred over to him (Cohen,