Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ 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…

  1. 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 498,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Why was the defendant listed first in Leonard v. Pepsico?

Pepsico brought a suit against Leonard in Leonard v. Pepsico so why was Leonard listed first? I'm assuming it's because the case was heard in a Federal Trial Court...? But the video stated that Pepsico sued Leonard to the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York. So shouldn't the case should be titled Pepsico v. Leonard since Pepsico is the party bringing the suit, (Pepsico is the Plaintiff and Leonard the defendant)? Is the order different for federal trial courts than it is for state trial courts?

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt.