Business Law

Question 1: What are the facts of the case?

This case arises out of a promotional campaign conducted by defendant, the producer and distributor of the soft drinks Pepsi and Diet Pepsi. The promotion, entitled "Pepsi Stuff," encouraged consumers to collect "Pepsi Points" from specially marked packages of Pepsi or Diet Pepsi and redeem these points for merchandise featuring the Pepsi logo. Before introducing the promotion nationally, defendant conducted a test of the promotion in the Pacific Northwest from October 1995 to March 1996. A Pepsi Stuff catalog was distributed to consumers in the test market, including Washington State. Plaintiff is a resident of Seattle, Washington. While living in Seattle, plaintiff saw the Pepsi Stuff commerciale that he contends constituted an offer of a Harrier Jet.

Question 2: What is the core legal issue the court needed to resolve? How did it resolve the issue?

Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to a Harrier Jet provided by Pepsi for the exchange of “Pepsi Points” as advertised in their commercial. The Court found that the Harrier Jet commercial was merely an advertisement meant as an offer to negotiate and not as a contract.

Question 3: Do you agree with how the court applied the "reasonable person standard" in this case?

I agree with using the “reasonable person standard”, because obviously if this person is the only one who was actually willing to purchase enough “points” in order to purchase something shown in an advertisement, then it’s not a shared opinion of the public who have seen the commercial. Therefore, it’s hard to know the plaintiff’s true intent on trying to do so in the first place as most “reasonable people” would not have considered the commercial as a binding contract.

Question 4: What could PepsiCo, Inc., have done to avoid misunderstanding by its customers, as in this case? Did PepsiCo act ethically in denying that the Harrier Jet was a real prize?

PepsiCo, Inc could have avoided...