Full Answer
[3] Because Leonard and PepsiCo were each plaintiff in one action and defendant in the other, the Court will refer to the parties as "Leonard" and "PepsiCo," rather than plaintiff and defendant, for its discussion of the procedural history of this litigation. [4] The Florida suit alleged that the commercial had been shown in Florida.
United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. John D.R. LEONARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEPSICO, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Before:  FEINBERG, JACOBS and HALL,* Circuit Judges. David E. Nachman, New York, N.Y. (David N. Ellenhorn, Emily Stern, Solomon, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Fischer & Sharp, New York, N.Y. on the brief) for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Leonard v. PepsiCo, 96-2555 Civ.-King, at 1 (S.D.Fla. Nov. 6, 1996). The Florida suit was transferred to this Court on December 2, 1996, and assigned the docket number 96 Civ. 9069. Once the Florida action had been transferred, Leonard moved to dismiss the declaratory judgment action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
On or about March 27, 1996, plaintiff submitted an Order Form, fifteen original Pepsi Points, and a check for $700,008.50. ( See Def. Stat. ¶ 36.) Plaintiff appears to have been represented by counsel at the time he mailed his check; the check is drawn on an account of plaintiff's first set of attorneys. ( See Defendant's Notice of Motion, Exh.
Procedural history The claim alleged both breach of contract and fraud. The case was originally brought in Florida, but eventually heard in New York. The defendant, Pepsi, moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
No. The only offer in the situation was Leonard's letter, Pepsi points and order form, which was rejected by Pepsi. This also means that no contract existed.
The item that you have requested is not part of the Pepsi Stuff collection. It is not included in the catalogue or on the order form, and only catalogue merchandise can be redeemed under this program. The Harrier jet in the Pepsi commercial is fanciful and is simply included to create a humorous and entertaining ad.
What was the result in the Opening Case in which the plaintiff attempted to buy a jet from Pepsi for Pepsi points and some additional funds? A. The plaintiff prevailed, and Pepsi had to sell the jet as offered because Pepsi failed to specifically reserve details of the offer to a separate writing.
He found a loophole in the contest rules that would allow him to purchase the jet without getting millions of Pepsi Points, so that's what he did. But when he sent in for the jet, Pepsi-Cola told the 21-year-old Leonard that it was all a joke.
The Marine Corps currently retains 126 AV-8B and TAV-8B aircraft, with only 80 Harrier aircraft in active service as of 2018. Each fighter squadron operates 16 AV-8B Harrier jets. The Marine Corps currently plans to have all squadrons transitioned to or start to transition to the F-35 platform by 2026.
The jet, though, never came. Pepsi's response: the ad was just a joke. "Tens of millions of Americans, and people around the world, saw the spot, got the joke and laughed," said John Harris of Pepsi-Cola.
$33.8 millionThe real price of a Harrier in 1996 was $33.8 million and used 11.4 gallons of fuel per minute. Leonard included $10 for shipping and handling, as per the contest rules. PepsiCo.
The defendant, Pepsi, moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Among other claims made, Leonard claimed that a federal judge was incapable of deciding on the matter, ...
The plaintiff did not collect 7,000,000 Pepsi Points through the purchase of Pepsi products, but instead sent a certified check for $700,008.50 as permitted by the contest rules. Leonard had 15 existing points, paid $0.10 a point for the remaining 6,999,985 points, and a $10 shipping and handling fee.
Since Pepsi never cashed the check, a case for fraud held no water; additionally, while the ad was alleged to have been a breach of contract, the ad was deemed to be humorous and did not legally constitute an offer under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts.
Pepsico characterizes the use of the Harrier jet in the ad as a hyperbolic joke (“zany humor”), cites the ad's reference to offering details contained in the promotional catalog (which contains no Harrier fighter plane), and argues that no objective person would construe the ad as an offer for the Harrier jet.
A television commercial aired by Pepsico depicted a teenager gloating over various items of merchandise earned by Pepsi points, and culminated in the teenager arriving at high school in a Harrier Jet , a fighter aircraft of the United States Marine Corps.
Charles Ossola, New York, N.Y. (Arnold & Porter, Washington D.C., and Arent, Fox, Kitner, Plotkin & Kahn, New York, N.Y. on the brief) for Defendant-Appellee. In 1995, defendant-appellee Pepsico, Inc. conducted a promotion in which it offered merchandise in exchange for “points” earned by purchasing Pepsi Cola.
Leonard sent a letter with his submission explaining that the money was for the purpose of buying additional Pepsi points to be used to redeem the jet shown in the commercial. Pepsico rejected the submission, stating that only items in the catalog or on the order form could be redeemed.
Pepsico filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for declaratory judgment that it was not required to provide the jet under the campaign.
One item in the commercial was a Harrier Jet, which was said to require seven million points. Pepsico also released a catalog containing the promotional merchandise. Pepsico provided an order form with the catalog, which listed items that could be redeemed with Pepsi points.
One item in the commercial was a Harrier Jet , which was said to require seven million points. Pepsico also released a catalog containing the promotional merchandise. Pepsico provided an order form with the catalog, which listed items that could be redeemed with Pepsi points. The jet was not listed in the catalog or on the order form. Leonard (plaintiff) wanted to redeem the jet, which he was aware at the time cost approximately 23 million dollars. He consulted the catalog, which contained directions for claiming merchandise. These directions included that, in the event someone does not have enough Pepsi points for an item, the additional points could be purchased for ten cents each so long as at least 15 Pepsi points are sent in with the order. Leonard was not able to collect seven million points through purchasing Pepsico products. He raised enough money to purchase the requisite number of points for the jet (i.e. $700,000) and submitted his order, which included 15 points and the money. Leonard sent a letter with his submission explaining that the money was for the purpose of buying additional Pepsi points to be used to redeem the jet shown in the commercial. Pepsico rejected the submission, stating that only items in the catalog or on the order form could be redeemed. Leonard exchanged demand letters with both Pepsico and the advertising company responsible for the commercial. Pepsico filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for declaratory judgment that it was not required to provide the jet under the campaign.
The jet was not listed in the catalog or on the order form. Leonard (plaintiff) wanted to redeem the jet, which he was aware at the time cost approximately 23 million dollars. He consulted the catalog, which contained directions for claiming merchandise.
In 1995, defendant-appellee Pepsico, Inc. conducted a promotion in which it offered merchandise in exchange for "points" earned by purchasing Pepsi Cola. A television commercial aired by Pepsico depicted a teenager gloating over various items of merchandise earned by Pepsi points, and culminated in the teenager arriving at high school in ...
Pepsico characterizes the use of the Harrier jet in the ad as a hyperbolic joke ("zany humor"), cites the ad's reference to offering details contained in the promotional catalog (which contains no Harrier fighter plane), and argues that no objective person would construe the ad as an offer for the Harrier jet.
Leonard v. Pepsico, more widely known as the “Pepsi Points Case”. A contracts case tried in the United States District Court of New York in 1999, in which John Leonard, the plaintiff sued PepsiCo in an effort to enforce an offer to redeem Pepsi Points for a Harrier Jet.
When an advertisement become an offer to enter legal and binding contracts?