Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store
Citation: Supreme Court of Minnesota, 251 Minn. 188 (1957)
Facts
The Great Minneapolis Surplus Store published newspaper advertisements offering specific fur coats for sale at drastically reduced prices on a first-come, first-served basis. Morris Lefkowitz was the first to arrive and tender the advertised price on two separate occasions. The store refused to sell to him both times, claiming the first time that a “house rule” limited the offer to women, and the second time on a similar basis. Lefkowitz sued for breach of contract.
Issue
Whether a newspaper advertisement can constitute a binding offer that, when accepted by a customer who complies with its terms, forms an enforceable contract.
Holding
The court held that the advertisement was a definite offer that Lefkowitz accepted by being first to appear and tendering the price. The store’s attempt to impose an unannounced house rule to exclude Lefkowitz was ineffective. Lefkowitz was entitled to damages.
Rule
An advertisement may constitute an offer — rather than a mere invitation to bargain — when it is clear, definite, and explicit, leaves nothing open for negotiation, and invites acceptance by performance (e.g., being first to arrive). Once accepted in the manner specified, a binding contract is formed.
Significance
The primary case used to teach the distinction between advertisements (generally invitations to deal) and binding offers. It illustrates that highly specific, limited-quantity advertisements can cross the line into an offer. Sets up discussion of objective manifestation of assent and the role of specificity in offer formation.