Leonard V. Pepsico, Inc. Case

Maximum Possible Points: The maximum number of points you may earn for this assignment is 50.

In week four’s theory practice, we reviewed the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker vs Chou in regards to determining the validity of a contract.  As we’ve reviewed, an agreement or mutual assent is of course essential to a valid contract but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts. If his words and acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree, it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind (Melvin, 2010).

This memo has been created to present all current proposals in regard to the supply of widgets for Gloria Smithson’s company to meet the requirements of current orders by customers. Though the ideal supply of widgets from domestic based companies is advised for several reasons, we will examine other options that may be more beneficial for Mrs. Smithson’s company. We will look at a local proposal coming from the same area as

Every business organization has a social responsibility in ensuring that the environment it operates in is protected. Many companies have identified that they have a major role to play in protecting the natural habitat and ensuring that business is not only about making profits. Some organizations are setting aside funds that are developed in the protection of the environment while other organizations are setting a tree-planting day as part of their annual calendar. Companies have legal and ethical responsibilities that guide the organization in making sure that the environment is taken care of. The natural resource depletion and the environmental pollution have led to conservation groups setting rules that govern the company in utilizing natural resources.

“We have completed this assignment on our own and have not discussed it with any other individual or used any other unauthorized aids. We acknowledge compliance with the academic requirements (e.g. citation of sources) of the University of Toronto.”

Hartman, E. (2006). Can We Teach Character? An Aristotelian Answer. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(1), 68-81

No. An ad can be treated as an offer under certain circumstances for instance in the Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. case. The store published a newspaper ad stating: that on Saturday 9 AM Sharp, three brand new fur coats, worth up to $1,000.00, first Come First Served $1 each. A customer named Morris Lefkowitz arrived at the store ready to pay. However, he was informed that under the defendant's house rules, the offer was open to women but not men. The court ruled for the plaintiff because he satisfied the terms of the advertisement. Therefore, the advertisement was explicit and left nothing open

Peter Crist is almost always correct. The reality is that if someone lies or covers stuff up, most of the time they will be found out eventually be it in two days or in 20 years. However, the reality is that some people do lie and cover stuff up in professional and personal situations and are never exposed. Sometimes this is because they're in a situation where dishonesty is prized, other times it's because the people around them turn a blind eye to what they see because they don't want to know the truth. Other times, it's because the person engaging in the dishonesty is so crafty and so quick that the trickery and subterfuge is almost inscrutable. However, the fact remains that Crist is correct. Often people are found out because those who are engaging in the trickery have so much hubris and so much arrogance that they engage in bolder and bolder moves, believing that they will never be caught. One example of that from the recent past is of Bernie Madoff. His crime was a simple Ponzi scheme which grew larger and larger in size and scale to the point where he couldn't help but be found out. In this case, the fact that Ms. Jones was found out was somewhat expected: she advanced to such a position of power within the institution that she was almost one of their public figures, which meant that her credentials would be under greater scrutiny.

The plaintiff Leonard used drastic interpretations of substantive and contract law to express his understanding of the Pepsi Stuff promotion. Plaintiff feels if "an advertisement is clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation [then] it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract"(Leonard v PepsiCo, 6). In such a case, an advertisement that is so specific leaves no grounds for questioning, therefore a contract is formed. The plaintiff attempts to stretch the boundaries of unilateral contracts claiming that PepsiCo made a clear offer and that he should receive the reward promised for his performance of the specified act. This is backed by the commanding 1892 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. case stating, "If a person chooses to make extravagant promises…he probably does so because it pays him to make them, and if he has made them, the extravagance of the promises is no reason in law why he should not be bound by them" (Leonard v PepsiCo, 6). The plaintiff claims that the commercial posed an offer to him and through this offer he should be granted a reward even though there is no legally binding

The objective theory of contracts is relevant to this case, because there was a clear difference between what Pepsi was thinking and what Leonard was thinking. Each had their own view of what the advertisement constituted, and it is from these differing views that the contract dispute arose. The judge in this situation must use the objective theory to decide the case. This means that the case can only rest on what has actually been communicated between the two parties. In this case, Pepsi has an advertisement that discusses its promotion. The promotion describes a bargain in which a customer presents Pepsi with "points" and Pepsi allows the customer to redeem those points

Offer is the promise made by the offeror. Generally, advertisement is the invitation to treat. Invitation to treat is different to the offer, so the advertisement is not an offer. (Partridge v Crittenden［1968］ 1 WLR 1204)

International business ethics challenges the corporate world to deal with questions of what to do in situations where ethical standards come into conflict as a result of the different cultural practices in the nation. Since, there is this dilemma that has progressively troubled the large multinational corporations, international business ethics has arisen to help address these adhesive subject matters. There are several international business ethics discussions on the question of how to act in the home country as opposed to the host country is at the central point of most international corporations. The argument in question is how companies should practice their business according

Six months ago, Antiques R Us (a Canadian corporation) entered into a contract with Yankee Antiques (an American company) to purchase “a desk used by George Washington himself after his retirement from the Presidency”. The sum of $500,000 was to be paid to Yankee Antiques after 30 days of

Plaintiff-appellant John D.R. Leonard alleges that the ad was an offer, that he accepted the offer by tendering the equivalent of 7 million points, and that Pepsico has breached its contract to deliver the Harrier jet. 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.

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.