Case Study: Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, 1957

Background

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota
• Date: 1957
• Context: The role of advertising in forming a contract.
• Key Figure: Morris Lefkowitz

Events

1. April 6, 1956:

   • Advertisement in a newspaper by Great Minneapolis Surplus Store.
   • Offered three brand new fur coats, valued at $1,000 each, for $1 on a first-come, first-served basis.
   • Morris Lefkowitz arrived first at the store but was denied the sale because the store claimed the offer was for women only.

2. April 13, 1956:

   • Another advertisement by the same store offering a black lapin stole worth $139.50 for $1.
   • Lefkowitz again arrived first but was refused the sale based on the same "house rule."

Legal Issue

• Claim: Lefkowitz sued the store for the value of the advertised items, arguing that the advertisements constituted offers he accepted by presenting himself and offering to pay.
• Store's Defense: The advertisements were mere invitations for offers, not offers themselves.

Court's Analysis

• Justice Murphy's Decision:
  • Advertisements as Offers: Court considered whether advertisements are offers or solicitations for offers.
  • Criteria for Offers: Advertisements can be considered offers if they are clear, definite, explicit, and leave nothing open for negotiation.
  • Outcome:
    • The coat ad was not considered an offer (value not specific enough).
    • The stole ad was considered an offer (specific value and acceptance terms).
  • Damages for Lefkowitz: Awarded expectation damages for the stole ($139.50 - $1 paid).

Implications

• Advertising Practices:
  • Advertisers should ensure ads are indefinite to avoid enforceable offers in court.
  • Phrasing like "worth X dollars" can make ads less definitive.
• House Rules:
  • House rules not part of the original offer cannot be imposed post-acceptance.
  • Timing is crucial; offers can be revoked before acceptance.

Broader Context

• Gender Discrimination in Contracting:
  • Legal in most states except California (Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits sex discrimination in contracting).
  • Federal law limits gender discrimination prohibitions to specific markets.
• Court's View on Advertisements:
  • Generally treated as solicitations unless they meet strict criteria as offers.