Well I’m actually sitting at a computer right now so I might as well provide citations in support of what I was saying.
It wasn’t a close case back then
Here’s the judicial ruling. Note that the plaintiff lost on three independent issues, each of which was enough by itself for Pepsi to win:
Advertisements are almost never binding offers, and this ad didn’t fall within the requirements to be a binding offer. In fact, even order forms and pricing lists/catalogs printed by the merchant aren’t binding offers by the merchant to sell the items on the list at the listed price, and must be affirmatively accepted by the merchant in order to form a binding contract.
No reasonable person would understand this joke as an offer, even if it weren’t an advertisement, so even if analyzed outside of the advertising context Pepsi would still win.
There’s no written contract, and contracts for the sale of physical goods worth over $500 require a written contract. The actual written materials in the points program all indicated that the only items available are those within the points catalog, and there was no Harrier jet in the actual printed catalog.
Then, on appeal, three other appellate judges unanimously ruled that the district court got it exactly right.
Well that’s just silly from the opinion of a random numbered citizen.
Well I’m actually sitting at a computer right now so I might as well provide citations in support of what I was saying.
Here’s the judicial ruling. Note that the plaintiff lost on three independent issues, each of which was enough by itself for Pepsi to win:
Then, on appeal, three other appellate judges unanimously ruled that the district court got it exactly right.