our next case comes from the Supreme Court of Minnesota in 1957 and deals with the role of advertising and forming a contract on Friday April 6 1956 the great Minneapolis surplus store published an advertisement in the newspaper very much like the one you see here it advertised Saturday 9:00 a.m. sharp three brand new fur coats worth two one thousand dollars first-come first-served one dollar each when the very next day Morris Lefkowitz went to the store was the first to present himself at the appropriate counter asked for the coat and indicated his readiness to pay the sales price of $1 but the store refused to sell it to him telling him that they had a house rule that the advertised offer applied only to women the following week on Friday the 13th the great Minneapolis surplus store again placed an ad in the newspaper this time advertising scarce and stoles in particular had advertised one black lapin stole beautiful worth a hundred and thirty nine dollars and fifty cents one dollar first-come first-served mr. Lefkowitz again went to the store again was the first to ask for the stole but they once again told him that they would not sell it to him and that he already knew the house ruled Lefkowitz then proceeded to sue the store for the value of the furs they refused to sell him the court in this case faced the question of whether there was a contract at all Lefkowitz argued that the advertisements constituted offers which he had then accepted by showing up at the great Minneapolis surplus store at the appointed time and ready to pay a dollar the store on the other hand argued that the ads were just invitations for an offer and not offers themselves the stores argument is equivalent to saying that the ads were soliciting offers from prospective customers justice Murphy had to decide whether the advertisements in this case were offers that become binding contracts when Lefkowitz accepted them there are three different ways we can view advertisements first they could be as Lefkowitz argues simply offers once they are accepted they become binding contracts second they might instead be just notices that the seller plans to make offers at a particular time and place in the future or third they might be solicitations notices that the seller would like to receive offers from interested buyers in general advertisements nowadays are usually interpreted belong to categories two and three category one is rather exceptional the court lays out a rule for when advertisements constitute an offer saying that where the offer is clear definite and explicit and leaves nothing open for negotiation it constitutes an offer acceptance of which will complete the contract that is if an ad specifies the exact exchange the terms that will take place and exactly what the buyer must do in order to take advantage of it the ad is an offer and the buyer can enforce once he or she has accepted it take note of something odd about this rule it seems to be intended to encourage definite contracting presumably to protect consumers from nunn from unscrupulous businesses but what would you do if you owned a store and you read this opinion you would make sure that all advertisements in the future were indefinite enough that no one could enforce them against you in court justice Murphy goes on to apply the rule to the two advertisements that Lefkowitz saw he finds that the first advertisement for the coat was not an offer worth two $100 was not sufficiently definite good a coat being worth 50 or 60 dollars be Elden would have to be exactly $100 but the second advertisement which exactly specified the value of the stole was definite enough and so left gu its was able to receive expectation damages the 130 $9.50 value of the stool - the one dollar he would had to pay for it notice that Murphy's rule has a perverse likely consequence the reluctance of courts to enforce indefinite contracts seems to be intended to encourage both parties to take more care to resolve ambiguities in their drafting language but justice Murphy's being unwilling to give legal effect indefinite offers might have the opposite effect what would you do if you owned a store the week after you read this opinion what kind of an ad would you place the next week well you might make sure that all advertisements you issued from here on out were indefinite enough by saying things like worth two X dollars so that no one could enforce them against you in court as for the house rule justice Murphy deals with it quite quickly the restriction was not part of the original offer and quote while an advertiser has the right at any time before acceptance to modify his offer he does not have the right after acceptance to impose new or arbitrary conditions since the restriction to women wasn't part of the original newspaper ad the store couldn't add it as an extra condition after Lefkowitz had successfully accepted the offer notice again how crucial timing is in this case if the store manager had called out we revoke the offer before left-left whit's said anything or if a large sign on the outside of the store said we revoke our code offer then left quits might have lost even with regard to the second ad the court doesn't seem to care that Lefkowitz already knew of out the house rule when he came to the store the second time so with regard to the house rule there is a stronger case for not allowing left wits to accept the second offer perhaps the court thought the store was engaging in deceptive bait-and-switch marketing tactics and wanted to find a way to penalize the score store believe it or not gender discrimination and contracting is actually legal in every state except California unlike race discrimination in contracting which is prohibited under federal law federal law prohibits gender discrimination in contract ly in contracting only in a handful of specific market such as employment and housing California's Unruh Civil Rights Act does banned gender discrimination in contracting along with discrimination on the basis of a wide range of other characteristics several states have now also prohibited sex discrimination with regard to public accommodations which increasingly encompasses a wide range of retail sales which of the following ads would would justice Murphy be most likely to consider an offer option D is the one that is most likely to be an offer because it specifies the exact value of the products on offer as well as how a buyer can accept by being among the first customers to arrive on the specified day from this case we have seen that advertisements are typically treated as solicitations for customers to make offers rather than as offers themselves but some courts do treat advertisements as offers when they are clear definite and explicit and leave nothing open for negotiation in the courts view the great Minneapolis surplus stores second advertisement met these requirements