Leonard V. Pepsico

In 1974, the Southeastern promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad case came to the Supreme Court. This came to the court because they believed it violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad it was argued that Southeastern Promotions was stripped of their freedom of speech because they were denied the use of the Tivoli Theater in Chattanooga, Tennessee to put on the rock musical Hair. The Supreme Court had to uphold the First Amendment while still allowing the theater to keep their reputation of being a family establishment.

Around November 2008, Dillard’s engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Cary, North Carolina location in violation of the Age Discrimination of Employment Act when it terminated Virginia Keene, a 61 year old woman, from her position ("Dillard 's sued by EEOC for age discrimination", 2010). She was an Area Sales Manager and was in charge of the Children’s and Accessories Departments and oversaw the sales associates who worked in her two departments. While she worked at Dillard’s, her managers repeatedly made verbal remarks to the fact that she was much older than the other five Area

Contract theory - studies how economic actors can and do construct contractual arrangements, generally in the presence of asymmetric information

This discussion board post will respond to various questions regarding the Contracts Analysis Case Study involving Marshall Petersen and his local health food business from a

We were able to locate and review the lawsuit Robert Coleman v CDCR, et al. In the complaint the plaintiff alleges that he was moved from a bunk bed cell to a side by side cell, which he claims seriously affected his mental health disorder (schizophrenia). The inmate states that when he informed the C/O that he could not stay in the side by side cell the C/O retaliated against him by placing the inmate in a small cage that he had to stand in for approximately seven hours. According to the inmate, his medical disability prohibits him from standing for long periods of time and subsequently experienced right knee pain and swelling. The inmate also indicates that his placement in a modified program violated his rights against lack of yard time

In our recent negotiation, my partner Dave and I assumed the roles of Alan Hacker, a computer software developer, and Alan Hacker’s lawyer. Being the lawyer in the negotiation my objective was to avoid litigation with my client’s partner Stanley Star and to aid in the continuation of my client’s co-owned company HackerStar. In addition, I would assist Hacker in coming to an agreement that would be satisfying for him both personally and financially. I felt that Dave and I presented a reasonable argument on Hacker’s behalf and, since I was able to apply some of our class readings during the process, I was overall pleased with the outcome.

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).

Facts: Beth Ann Faragher worked as a lifeguard for the city of Boca Raton between 1985 to 1990. During the time of her employment with the City, two of her supervisors Terry and Silverman created a sexually hostile atmosphere by groping her and other female employees, as well as having to be subjected to verbal harassment; she felt as though there was not a chance for her to advancement by the way Terry and Silverman spoke to her. Before Faragher resigned, a former female lifeguard

Facts: Matt Theurer was an 18 year old adult that worked at McDonald’s part time. His friends and family worried about him because he had many extra-curricular activities, worked for the National Guard, and worked for McDonalds. McDonald’s informal policy did not allow high school students to work more than one midnight shift per week or split shifts. There was a special clean-up week McDonald’s held, Theurer worked five nights. One night he worked until midnight, another until 11:30pm, two nights until 9pm, and another until 11pm. On Monday, April 4th, 1988, Theurer worked from 3:30 until 7:30pm, followed by the clean up shift beginning at midnight

Lord Denning holds the opinion that “…it is a mistake to think that all contracts can be analyzed into the form of offer and acceptance…” He gives his support of the statement above and echoes these sentiments in the case of Butler v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979). He believes that the “…better way is to look at all the documents passing between the parties and glean from them or from the conduct of the

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

Contracts are used in many different forms and for just as many different situations within our everyday lives. Some contracts are more involved than others and for some; contracts are an essential of their success. As we continue, we will take a look at different types of contracts with the main focus on enforceable contracts. With so many elements that are incorporated into any contract, the six essential elements of enforceable contracts will be the main focus of this writing. Having a clearer understanding of the essentials of life will help prepare us for life’s curves that may come our way.

Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., is a contract case which was tried in New York in 1999, in which John Leonard sued Pepsico, Inc., in an effort to enforce an “offer” to redeem 7,000,000 “Pepsi Points” for a militarized jet which PepsiCo had briefly shown in television commercial.

Introduction: In this assignment I will go over a few legal terms in relation to contract law. I will also talk about a few precedents that help explain the law.