Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.

Decision Date20 December 1957
Docket NumberNo. 37220,37220
Citation251 Minn. 188,86 N.W.2d 689
PartiesMorris LEFKOWITZ, Respondent, v. GREAT MINNEAPOLIS SURPLUS STORE, Inc., Appellant.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where one offers for sale by newspaper advertisement a certain article of definite value at a quoted price, which offer is clear, definite, and explicit and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which may complete the contract.

2. While an advertiser has the right at any time before acceptance to modify his offer, he does not have the right, after acceptance, to impose new or arbitrary conditions not contained in the published offer. Louis F. Davis, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Morris Lefkowitz, pro se.

MURPHY, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Municipal Court of Minneapolis denying the motion of the defendant for amended findings of fact, or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The order for judgment awarded the plaintiff the sum of $138.50 as damages for breach of contract.

This case grows out of the alleged refusal of the defendant to sell to the plaintiff a certain fur piece which it had offered for sale in a newspaper advertisement. It appears from the record that on April 6, 1956, the defendant published the following advertisement in a Minneapolis newspaper:

'Saturday 9 A.M. Sharp 3 Brand New Fur Coats Worth to

$100.00

First Come First Served $1 Each'

On April 13, the defendant again published an advertisement in the same

newspaper as follows: 'Saturday 9 A.M. 2 Brand New Pastel

Mink 3-Skin Scarfs Selling for.$89.50

Out they go Saturday. Each ... $1.00

1 Black Lapin Stole Beautiful, worth $139.50 ... $1.00

First Come First Served'

The record supports the findings of the court that on each of the Saturdays following the publication of the above-described ads the plaintiff was the first to present himself at the appropriate counter in the defendant's store and on each occasion demanded the coat and the stole so advertised and indicated his readiness to pay the sale price of $1. On both occasions, the defendant refused to sell the merchandise to the plaintiff, stating on the first occasion that by a 'house rule' the offer was intended for women only and sales would not be made to men, and on the second visit that plaintiff knew defendant's house rules.

The trial court properly disallowed plaintiff's claim for the value of the fur coats since the value of these articles was speculative and uncertain. The only evidence of value was the advertisement itself to the effect that the coats were 'Worth to $100.00,' how much less being speculative especially in view of the price for which they were offered for sale. With reference to the offer of the defendant on April 13, 1956, to sell the '1 Black Lapin Stole * * * worth $139.50 * * *' the trial court held that the value of this article was established and granted judgment in favor of the plaintiff for that amount less the $1 quoted purchase price.

1. The defendant contends that a newspaper advertisement offering items of merchandise for sale at a named price is a 'unilateral offer' which may be withdrawn without notice. He relies upon authorities which hold that, where an advertiser publishes in a newspaper that he has a certain quantity or quality of goods which he wants to dispose of at certain prices and on certain terms, such advertisements are not offers which become contracts as soon as any person to whose notice they may come signifies his acceptance by notifying the other that he will take a certain quantity of them. Such advertisements have been construed as an invitation for an offer of sale on the terms stated, which offer, when received, may be accepted or rejected and which therefore does not become a contract of sale until accepted by the seller; and until a contract has been so made, the seller may modify or revoke such prices or terms. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Johnson, 209 Mass. 89, 95 N.W. 290; Nickel v. Theresa Farmers Co-op. Ass'n, 247 Wis. 412, 20 N.W.2d 117; Lovett v. Frederick Loeser & Co. Inc., 124 Misc. 81, 207 N.Y.S. 753; Schenectady Stove Co. v. Holbrook, 101 N.Y. 45, 4 N.E. 4; Georgian Co. v. Bloom, 27 Ga.App. 468, 108 S.E. 813; Craft v. Elder & Johnson Co., 38 N.E.2d 416, 34 Ohio L.A. 603; Annotation, 157 A.L.R. 746.

The defendant relies principally on Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co.supra. In that case, the court discussed the legal effect of an advertisement offering for sale, as a one-day special, an electric sewing machine at a named price. The view was expressed that the advertisement was (38 N.E.2d 417, 34 Ohio L.A. 605) 'not an offer made to any specific person but was made to the public generally. Thereby it would be properly designated as a unilateral offer and not being supported by any consideration could be withdrawn at will and without notice.' It is true that such an offer may be withdrawn before acceptance. Since all offers are by their nature unilateral because they are necessarily made by one party or on one side in the negotiation of a contract, the distinction made in that decision between a unilateral offer and a unilateral contract is not clear. On the facts before us we are concerned with whether the advertisement constituted an offer, and, if so, whether the plaintiff's conduct constituted an acceptance.

There are numerous...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Goddard, Inc. v. Henry's Foods, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • September 26, 2003
    ...complete the contract.'" Short v. Sun Newspapers, Inc., 300 N.W.2d 781, 786 (Minn.1980), quoting Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689, 691 (1957). As to that acceptance, the Minnesota Supreme Court "has stated that * * * `[a]n acceptance, to be va......
  • Donovan v. RRL Corp.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 30, 2001
    ...at that price in exchange for the customer's act of arriving at the store at a particular time. (Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (1957) 251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689, 691; Rest.2d Contracts, § 26, com. b, illus. 1, p. 76.) Similarly, external wording on the envelope of an item o......
  • Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc.
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • June 14, 2002
    ...when an advertisement is "clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation." Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, 251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689, 691 (1957); see also R.E. Crummer & Co. v. Nuveen, 147 F.2d 3, 5 (7th Cir.1945) (holding that advertisement inviting......
  • Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1977
    ...113 N.E.2d 252, 51 Ohio Op. 8.) Although in some cases the advertisement itself may be an offer (see Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. (1957), 251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689), usually it constitutes only an invitation to deal on the advertised terms. Only when the merchant ta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • 6.2 Formation of Contracts
    • United States
    • Virginia Law and Practice: A Handbook for Attorneys (Virginia CLE) Chapter 6 Contracts in Virginia
    • Invalid date
    ...and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it constitutes an offer." Id. (citing Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 86 N.W.2d 689, 691 (Minn. 1957)).[149] Campbell v. Beard, 50 S.E. 747 (W. Va. 1905).[150] Black's Law Dictionary 441 (3d pocket ed. 2006).[151] Id.[152] Id.[153......
  • 2.3 Mechanics of Assent: Offer and Acceptance
    • United States
    • Contract Law in Virginia (Virginia CLE) Chapter 2 Formation of Contracts
    • Invalid date
    ...and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it constitutes an offer." Id. (citing Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 86 N.W.2d 689, 691 (Minn. 1957)).[33] Campbell v. Beard, 50 S.E. 747 (W. Va. 1905).[34] Black's Law Dictionary 441 (3d pocket ed. 2006).[35] Id.[36] Id.[37] Moo......
  • The language of property: form, context, and audience.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 55 No. 4, April 2003
    • April 1, 2003
    ...text. (302.) Specificity will push in the direction of finding an offer. See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 86 N.W.2d 689, 691 (Minn. (303.) See, e.g., United States v. Braunstein, 75 F. Supp. 137, 139 (S.D.N.Y. 1947) ("It is true that there is much room for inte......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT