John D.R. Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
John D.R. Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dustin S. Kolodziej v. James Cheney Mason (ca11, 2014-12-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Dustin S. Kolodziej v. James Cheney Mason
11th Cir. · 2014 · signal: accord · confidence high
See Acumen Constr., Inc. v. Neher, 616 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993); accord Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F.Supp.2d 116, 122 (S.D.N.Y.1999), aff'd 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" Kolodziej v. Mason
M.D. Fla. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Leonard v. Pepsico, 88 F.Supp.2d 116, 128 (S.D.N.Y.1999), aff'd 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000) (“[w]hether there was an offer to enter into a contract requires the Court to determine how a reasonable, objective person would have understood the defendant’s communication, an inquiry that is commonly performed by courts on a motion for summary judgment.”).
discussed Cited "see" Frontier-Kemper Constructors, Inc. v. American Rock Salt Co.
W.D.N.Y. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F.Supp.2d 116, 132 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (“[TJhe plaintiff must show the misrepresentation was collateral, or served as an inducement, to a separate agreement between the parties”) (emphasis added, citations omitted), aff'd, 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000); see also, International Cabletel Inc. v. Le Groupe Videotron Ltee, 978 F.Supp. 483, 491 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (Holding that “fraud in the inducement can be supported by a false statement of present fact, or by a false statement of future intent which concerns a matter collateral to a contract between the parties.”) (em…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rowe Plastic Surgery of New Jersey, L.L.C. v. United Healthcare
E.D.N.Y · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
Rowe Plastic Surgery, 705 F. Supp. 3d at 202 (“Nor can allegations related to plaintiffs’ subjective understanding that this representation was a unilateral offer change the analysis, as subjective intent is completely irrelevant.”); see also Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116, 127 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff’d, 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Trell v. American Ass'n for the Advancement of Science
2d Cir. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
In any event, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Trell’s breach of contract claim as to both entities because we conclude that Science-NOW’s request for “news tips” was not a binding offer. “[Advertisements] are mere notices and solicitations for offers which create no power of acceptance in the recipient.” Mesaros v. United States, 845 F.2d 1576, 1580 (Fed.Cir.1988); see also Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F.Supp.2d 116, 122-24 (S.D.N.Y.1999), aff'd, 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000). 1 Nor does ScienceNOW’s solicitation fall within that class of advertisements that are deemed …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Trell v. American Ass'n for the Advancement of Science
2d Cir. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
In any event, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Trell’s breach of contract claim as to both entities because we conclude that Science-NOW’s request for “news tips” was not a binding offer. “[Advertisements] are mere notices and solicitations for offers which create no power of acceptance in the recipient.” Mesaros v. United States, 845 F.2d 1576, 1580 (Fed.Cir.1988); see also Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F.Supp.2d 116, 122-24 (S.D.N.Y.1999), aff'd, 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000). 1 Nor does ScienceNOW’s solicitation fall within that class of advertisements that are deemed …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John D.R. LEONARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PEPSICO, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Docket 99-9032.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 17, 2000.
210 F.3d 88
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6855
2000 WL 381742
David E. Nachman, New York, N.Y. (David N. Ellenhorn, Emily Stern, Solomon, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Fischer & Sharp, New York, N.Y. on the brief) for Plaintiff-Appellant., Charles Ossola, New York, N.Y. (Arnold & Porter, Washington D.C., and Arent, Fox, Kitner, Plotkin & Kahn, New York, N.Y. on the brief) for DefendanL-Appellee.
Feinberg, Jacobs, Hall.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
[*89] PER CURIAM.

In 1995, defendant-appellee Pepsico, Inc. conducted a promotion in which it offered merchandise in exchange for “points” earned by purchasing Pepsi Cola. A television commercial aired by Pepsico depicted a teenager gloating over various items of merchandise earned by Pepsi points, and culminated in the teenager arriving at high school in a Harrier Jet, a fighter aircraft of the United States Marine Corps. For each item of merchandise sported by the teenager (a T shirt, a jacket, sunglasses), the ad noted the number of Pepsi points needed to get it. When the teenager is shown in the jet, the ad prices it as 7 million points.

Plaintiff-appellant John D.R. Leonard alleges that the ad was an offer, that he accepted the offer by tendering the equivalent of 7 million points, and that Pepsico has breached its contract to deliver the Harrier jet. Pepsico characterizes the use of the Harrier jet in the ad as a hyperbolic joke (“zany humor”), cites the ad’s reference to offering details contained in the promotional catalog (which contains no Harrier fighter plane), and argues that no objective person would construe the ad as an offer for the Harrier jet.

The Unites States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Wood, J.) agreed with Pepsico and granted its motion for summary judgment on the grounds (1) that the commercial did not amount to an offer of goods; (2) that no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers a Harrier Jet; and (3) that the alleged contract could not satisfy the New York statute of frauds.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Wood’s opinion. See 88 F.Supp.2d 116 (S.D.N.Y.1999).