From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
Leonard v. Pepsico
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
88 F. Supp.2d 116 (1999)
Pepsico (defendant) began a promotional campaign that encouraged its customers to collect “Pepsi points” and trade them in for merchandise. As a part of this campaign, Pepsico created a commercial that showed some of the available merchandise along with the number of points it would take to acquire it. One item in the commercial was a Harrier Jet, which was said to require seven million points. Pepsico also released a catalog containing the promotional merchandise. Pepsico provided an order form with the catalog, which listed items that could be redeemed with Pepsi points. The jet was not listed in the catalog or on the order form. Leonard (plaintiff) wanted to redeem the jet, which he was aware at the time cost approximately 23 million dollars. He consulted the catalog, which contained directions for claiming merchandise. These directions included that, in the event someone does not have enough Pepsi points for an item, the additional points could be purchased for ten cents each so long as at least 15 Pepsi points are sent in with the order. Leonard was not able to collect seven million points through purchasing Pepsico products. He raised enough money to purchase the requisite number of points for the jet (i.e., $700,000) and submitted his order, which included 15 points and the money. Leonard sent a letter with his submission explaining that the money was for the purpose of buying additional Pepsi points to be used to redeem the jet shown in the commercial. Pepsico rejected the submission, stating that only items in the catalog or on the order form could be redeemed. Leonard exchanged demand letters with both Pepsico and the advertising company responsible for the commercial. Pepsico filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not required to provide the jet under the campaign. Leonard filed suit in Florida state court seeking specific performance of Pepsico's alleged offer for the jet. That action was eventually transferred to the Southern District of New York, and the court considered both actions together. Pepsico moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wood, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 629,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.