Runninghead: UNIT 3 – COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS (CONTRACTS)
28 February 2010
This week’s individual project will be in the form of an executive summary. The summary will be based on a series of questions concerning 1) the city of Bigtown’s advertising campaign (courtesy of the mayor), 2) possible similarities of this promotion to a court decision and 3) possible repercussions that could be encountered if not executed with caution. The court decision concerning John D.R. Leonard vs. PepsiCo is the basis of my summary. My conclusion will be an alternative suggestion to be decided on by Bigtown’s counsel.
Unit 3 – Commercial Transactions (Contracts)
Although Bigtown has devised creative advertising campaigns, our recent efforts to stimulate tourism have been unsuccessful. I am moved to address our current proposal to auction our fine city of Bigtown on eBay. Although this is sure to turn the heads of most WebCrawler’s our intentions are strictly fictitious (and should be displayed as such). Minimizing the potential of a frequent eBay auctioneer taking this “mock advertisement” seriously smacks of the “Pepsistuff”/Harrier jet incident that took place in 1996. If not for the ruling in1999 for reasons stated below, PepsiCo would have been the brunt of the deal of the century; advertising to sell a 23 million dollar government-owned fighter jet for a mere 7 hundred thousand dollars.
(1)Some of the reasons the deal was not finalized was the contract was not valid. The buyer desired to buy the fighter jet and made an offer to PepsiCo. PepsiCo did not accept the offer (for obvious reasons) whereas the agreement is not mutual. When the buyer (John D.R. Leonard) did not see the Harrier Jet he desired on the ordering form to purchase the so-called “Pepsistuff”, this presents itself of not being a bargaining item, which means considering it is not valid. Being that the buyer did not consider the obvious humor PepsiCo was...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document