To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store

Law Dictionary

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Font size

Contracts Keyed to Murphy

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 22 Ill.251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689 (1957)

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant advertised the sale of three fur coats and three fur stoles for $1.00 a piece. The advertisement said “first come, first serve”. Plaintiff arrived at Defendant’s store wishing to buy the garments. Defendant refused, saying the sale was only for women.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. An advertisement may be considered an offer when it promises something in exchange for clear, definite action, and leaves nothing open for negotiation. Otherwise, an advertisement is an invitation for an offer.

Facts. Defendant ran two newspaper advertisements, one stating that Defendant would sell three fur coats, valued at $100.00 a piece, first come, first served, and the other, stating that Defendant would sell three fur stoles, valued between $89.00 and $139.50 for one dollar a piece. Plaintiff arrived first on both occasions, and presented $3.00. Defendant refused to sell the items to Plaintiff, citing a “house rule” which limited the bargains to women.

Issue. Did Defendant’s advertisement constitute an offer?
See More Course Videos

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following