Indeed there are four elements of a contract;
C. Contractual capacity
D. Lawful object
2. Describe the objective theory of contracts. How does that theory apply to this case?
We currently use contract law based on the objective theory of contracts. This states
that if an objective third party (the jury) believes the parties intend to form a contract, then a
contract should be found, meaning we prefer to interpret actions and words in such a way
that a contract exists rather than to interpret them to find there is no contract.
This theory does apply to this case. There is 2 ways to perceive this case, the first is the
way that John Leonard did. He believed that the harrier jet was one of the prizes he could
receive if he met all the obligations. Pepsi Co. stated that it was just a humorous act and
assumed that everyone would laugh and not take it seriously. When Leonard took this case
to court, the federal judge held the responsibility of the reasonable person, because the article
did not specify that there was a jury. He looked at the ad and agreed with Pepsi Co. There
was not intent to mislead. The judge used his common sense and considered that, who would
really offer a 23 million dollar jet to give away, and further more, no objective person could
reasonably believe that they were offering the Harrier jet to consumers.
3. Why do you think the court held that there was not a valid agreement here?
There was no formal agreement made, any reasonable level-headed person would
understand that they were indeed joking and the judge also saw the humor in the Harrior jet
offer. The judge determined that "an advertisement is not transformed into an enforceable
offer merely by a potential offeree's expression of willingness to accept the offer".
(www.scu.edu). Just because Leonard sent...