Pepsi Co vs. Leonard
A valid contract is one that contains all of the essential elements that bind it as a legal agreement. In other words a contract must first consist of an agreement between two or more parties. Secondly, it must be supported by legally sufficient consideration. Thirdly the agreement must be between parties with contractual capacity. And finally a valid contract must accomplish a lawful object. With the containment of these four elements valid contracts become enforceable by at least one of the parties involved. According to The District Court of Kemba M. Wood, Jr., the commercial was simply an advertisement not constituting any offer. It also held that the commercial was not a means to “reward” which could result in a contract through the unilateral action of the offeree. Furthermore there was no offer to which the objective offeree could respond, as the commercial was made in “jest.” Subsequently the additional discovery of any evidence would not be allowed. Consequently, in the State of New York there was no contract satisfying requirements of the New York Statute of frauds; and under this law, the viewer did not state a claim of fraud under New York Law. The objective theory of contracts holds that the intent to enter into an express or implied-in-fact contract is judged by the reasonable person standard. Hypothetically speaking, would a reasonable person conclude that the parties intended to create a contract after considering a) the words and conduct of the parties and b) the surrounding circumstances? For example, no valid contract can result from an offer that is made in jest, anger, or undue excitement. In the case Leonard v. PepsiCo, the lawsuit could not be considered a contract/agreement of any sort once either the conduct of PepsiCo or the surrounding circumstances were taken into consideration. According to the requirements for establishing a valid contract, the PepsiCo advertisement was not valid as these elements did...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document