Question

Read and analyze the scenario below. Using Microsoft Word, answer the questions posed. You must use the law you learned to support your answers. Your assignment should be a minimum of 1 full page and follow these guidelines: 12-point Times font One inch margins Double-spaced Correct spelling, grammar and sentence structure.

The Great Minneapolis Surplus Store published the following advertisement in a Minneapolis newspaper: Saturday 9 a.m. 2 Brand New Pastel Mink 3-Skin Scarfs selling for $89.50 now selling for $1.00 each. 1 Black Lapin Stole worth $139.50 will sell for $1.00. First Come First Served. Leftkowitz, the first customer admitted to the store on Saturday, tried to buy the Lapin stole. The store refused to sell it to Lefkowitz, stating that the offer was for women only. Leftkowitz sued.

Was the offer definite enough to allow Leftkowitz to tender a valid acceptance? Explain your answer using the law you learned. (i.e. If there was a valid offer, explain why the offer meets the elements of an offer. If there was no valid offer, explain why the advertisement does not meet the elements of an offer. If there was a valid acceptance, explain why the acceptance meets the elements of an acceptance, if there was no valid acceptance, explain why Leftkowitz's actions did not meet the elements of an acceptance.)

Answer 1

In this scenario there has been a misleading advertisement. The law related to advertisement states that “When the consumer see or hear an advertisement, whether it is on the Internet, Radio or television or anywhere else, Federal law says that – Law has to be truthful, not misleading and when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.

State and Federal law are in place to protect the consumers from false or misleading advertisement due to which consumers will go through pain \ loss. These law makes deceptive claims illegal. No business is supposed to make misleading advertisement. If done, the consumer can sue against the person or business in the court of law. Even in this scenario the similar situation has occurred and suing the company by Leftkowitz is correct.

The offer was definite enough for Leftkowitz to tender a valid acceptance. Since the advertisement talks only about first come and first serve. Never was it mentioned that the offer is valid only for Women and neither it was mentioned in the advertisement. This made Leftkowitz to approach the vendor asking for the product which was going to be sold for just $1.00. The advertisement clearly states that whoever comes first will be served and there was no discrimination of the gender in the advertisement. Hence the advertisement was misleading and Leftkowitz has all the rights to sue against the company.

Also the acceptance meets the elements of acceptance. The offer stated that ‘2 Brand New Pastel Mink 3-Skin Scarfs selling for $89.50 now selling for $1.00 each. 1 Black Lapin Stole worth $139.50 will sell for $1.00. First Come First Served. Leftkowitz, the first customer admitted to the store on Saturday’. So, there has been an element of acceptance by the consumer. If the consumer sue the company and if it is accepted by the court of law, The US Department of Justice (DOJ) which is led by Attorney General is the federal executive department will be involved in the case and there are possible chances of the seller getting punished on this case.

If the case is accepted by the court of law and it is proven that it was a misleading advertisement, there are chances that seller might lose the licensing of the shop or the seller will have to compensate the consumer for what he ask or the seller might get imprisonment for a specified period of time. Upon review of the case it can be stated that ‘ Advertisement has been misleading and consumer has all the rights to sue the seller”