Warning

Info

Table of Contents
UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.

(1957)

Minnesota Supreme Court - 251 Minn. 188

tl;dr:

Store refuses to sell a fur coat to customer for $1, even though the store advertised that it would sell fur coats for $1 on a "first come, first served basis." The customer was the first to arrive to the store.

Case Summary

In Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (1957), a man sued a store for breach of contract after they advertised fur coats and stoles for $1 each, first-come, first-served. He was the first to arrive twice but was refused, as the store said the sale was only for women. He argued that he accepted their offer by being first in line, so he filed a lawsuit. The trial court and appellate court found in his favor, stating the advertisement was a clear, definite, and explicit offer with no room for negotiation. They determined he accepted the offer by being first, and the store couldn't add new conditions not mentioned in the ad.

This case shows that an advertisement can sometimes be viewed as an offer. Typically, an ad is not an offer but an invitation for negotiation. However, it can be an offer if it promises something in exchange for a specific act without further discussion. It also highlights that acceptance can be signified through actions, not just words. Acceptance shows agreement to an offer's terms, and when the offer asks for action, performing that act signifies acceptance.

Lastly, the case clarifies the difference between an offer and an invitation to treat. An offer leads to a legal obligation if accepted, while an invitation to treat encourages further negotiations or dealings.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingLefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. case brief facts & holding

Facts:The Great Minneapolis Surplus Store ("GMSS") advertised a fur stole...

Holding:An advertisement constitutes a binding offer if it is clear,...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Murphy, Justice.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The plaintiff was awarded damages for breach of contract after the defendant refused to sell a fur piece advertised in a newspaper. The defendant argued that the advertisement was a unilateral offer that could be withdrawn without notice, citing legal cases in support. However, the court held that the advertisement constituted a clear and explicit offer that, when accepted, completed a contract. The defendant's refusal to sell the merchandise to the plaintiff constituted a breach of contract, and the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the value of the advertised black lapin stole. The court correctly denied the plaintiff's claim for the value of the fur coats due to the speculative and uncertain nature of their value.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.

Chat for Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.
brief-130
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.