Top Law Schools

Grocery placed an advertisement in the newspaper stating that a packaged meal for four
adults would be sold for $10. Buyer went to Grocery, saw the advertised packaged meals
displayed prominently in a bin with signs indicating that these meals were those
advertised for sale at $10. Buyer took 20 meals and she placed them along with $200
(twenty $10 bills) on the conveyor belt at the checkout counter. The Grocery Cashier
took $50 and placed 5 meals in a bag which he gave to Buyer. The Cashier returned the
remaining $150 to Buyer and removed the remaining 15 meals which he gave to an
assistant to return to the packaged meals bin.

If Buyer sues Grocery for breach of contract for refusing to sell her the remaining 15
meals, is she likely to prevail?

a. Yes, the newspaper advertisement was an offer that Buyer accepted.
b. Yes, a contract for the sale of 20 packaged meals was created as soon as Buyer
took the 20 meals from the packaged meals bin.
c. No, there is no contract because Buyer never communicated expressly with the
Grocery Cashier, either in writing or orally.
d. No, there was only a contract for the sale of 5 meals, not 20 meals.

I understand that advertisements are generally not offers, i'm just not sure what kind of K this is, if any??

Full disclosure, I'm a 1L and learned this about a week ago. My understanding is that D is correct because Buyer made the offer when he took the meals to the cashier. Cashier made a counteroffer when only 5 were rung up. Buyer assented when he purchased the 5 meals. If Buyer wanted a cause of action Buyer would have had to reject the 5 meals and insist on all 20. I could be off base here though, definitely have someone else check.

Yeah. A case where seller makes offer rather than buyer.

Answer is likely (b).

The advertisement constitutes a unilateral contract in which the grocery store promises these meals at a certain price. The grocery store could reasonably expect the promise of this price to induce customers to come to the grocery store and purchase the meals. There is no expectation of negotiation and it would be inefficient for the general public, to which the advertisement was made, to rely on the promise only to find out that the offer would not be enforced (remember, by going to the grocery store the offeree is not pursuing other opportunities like going to other grocery stores with their own deals). Therefore, a contract was formed when the customer went to the grocery store and placed the meals in his/her cart. The customer performed in accordance with the advertisement and is entitled to purchase as many of these meals as he/she pleases at the advertised price.

morrissey wrote:Full disclosure, I'm a 1L and learned this about a week ago. My understanding is that D is correct because Buyer made the offer when he took the meals to the cashier. Cashier made a counteroffer when only 5 were rung up. Buyer assented when he purchased the 5 meals. If Buyer wanted a cause of action Buyer would have had to reject the 5 meals and insist on all 20. I could be off base here though, definitely have someone else check.

The answer is probably not (d) because the initial advertisement was to the general public, not to one other buyer or a small group of other buyers where there is the expectation of back and forth negotiations. Here, there is no expectation of negotiation and the advertisement was definite in nature. Therefore, the reasonable person would not expect a counteroffer and accepts the offer by performing (i.e. showing up to the store and putting the meals in his/her cart).

Edit: As a general tip, I think it is helpful to play out how events generally unfold in real life. Here, do you really go to the cashier at a grocery store expecting "counteroffers"?

Thanks!

Gonna go w D bros

Advertisements aren't offers (generally) unless they are solicited. They are invitations to make offers

So A is wrong

B is wrong because taking the meals from the bin is nothing really

So that leaves C and D

Giving the meals to the cashier was the offer. Selling him 5 and giving him change was the counteroffer.

My only problem is it doesn't say whether Buyer accepted this counteroffer (but if he did its when he took back the $150 and let the associate take away the other 15)

But C is likely wrong bc the reasoning is shitty

So I'm gonna go w D

lawyerwannabe wrote:

morrissey wrote:Full disclosure, I'm a 1L and learned this about a week ago. My understanding is that D is correct because Buyer made the offer when he took the meals to the cashier. Cashier made a counteroffer when only 5 were rung up. Buyer assented when he purchased the 5 meals. If Buyer wanted a cause of action Buyer would have had to reject the 5 meals and insist on all 20. I could be off base here though, definitely have someone else check.

The answer is probably not (d) because the initial advertisement was to the general public, not to one other buyer or a small group of other buyers where there is the expectation of back and forth negotiations. Here, there is no expectation of negotiation and the advertisement was definite in nature. Therefore, the reasonable person would not expect a counteroffer and accepts the offer by performing (i.e. showing up to the store and putting the meals in his/her cart).

Edit: As a general tip, I think it is helpful to play out how events generally unfold in real life. Here, do you really go to the cashier at a grocery store expecting "counteroffers"?

The ad is probably not an offer. Go look at Lefkowitz factors

Gotta be clear, definite, and explicit and leave nothing open for negotiation (one fur)

Here, the buyer could presumably not come in and ask for 3000 meals (more than the store carries). The quantity is arguably open to negotiation.

Definitely not like the very clear very restricted one lapin fur to the first comer

rad lulz wrote:

lawyerwannabe wrote:

morrissey wrote:Full disclosure, I'm a 1L and learned this about a week ago. My understanding is that D is correct because Buyer made the offer when he took the meals to the cashier. Cashier made a counteroffer when only 5 were rung up. Buyer assented when he purchased the 5 meals. If Buyer wanted a cause of action Buyer would have had to reject the 5 meals and insist on all 20. I could be off base here though, definitely have someone else check.

The answer is probably not (d) because the initial advertisement was to the general public, not to one other buyer or a small group of other buyers where there is the expectation of back and forth negotiations. Here, there is no expectation of negotiation and the advertisement was definite in nature. Therefore, the reasonable person would not expect a counteroffer and accepts the offer by performing (i.e. showing up to the store and putting the meals in his/her cart).

Edit: As a general tip, I think it is helpful to play out how events generally unfold in real life. Here, do you really go to the cashier at a grocery store expecting "counteroffers"?

The ad is probably not an offer. Go look at Lefkowitz factors

Gotta be clear, definite, and explicit and leave nothing open for negotiation (one fur)

Here, the buyer could presumably not come in and ask for 3000 meals (more than the store carries). The quantity is arguably open to negotiation.

Definitely not like the very clear very restricted one lapin fur to the first comer

agreed with Rad Lulz.... advertisements are just invitations to make a bid, unless the advertisements are explicit and leave no room for negotiation.

Lefkowitz is my reasoning for choosing D. C seems OK.

Mr.Throwback wrote:Lefkowitz is my reasoning for choosing D. C seems OK.

The reasoning expressed by C is shitty. Ks can definitely be based on just the actions of the parties

.

ajax adonis wrote:Do you know the correct answer yet?

I would choose D for similar reasons already stated. If it matters to you guys, I've already graduated law school.

Yeah same

And this looks pretty similar to those MBE Qs I did

I am still going to stick with (b). In Lefkowitz, damages were not awarded for the one item because its value was not well defined. Here, value is well defined, just like the items the P received damages for in the cited case. The grocery store should have limited the number of meals a customer could buy or say "as long as supplies last" (like they do normally when they have such advertisements in real life).

While I agree (d) is a better answer than I first thought because of the example given above (i.e. purchasing 3000 meals), the reasonable person would see this advertisement, which was made to the general public, and would think they could get as many meals as they want for the advertised price.

lawyerwannabe wrote:I am still going to stick with (b). In Lefkowitz, damages were not awarded for the one item because its value was not well defined. Here, value is well defined, just like the items the P received damages for in the cited case. The grocery store should have limited the number of meals a customer could buy (like they do normally when they have such advertisements in real life).

But they didn't here dood

Can't leave anything open for negotiation

Not an offer

I remember reading one case (I think it was ProCD) where the court argued that when the D in that case took the items off the shelf, that is what constituted an offer. I don't know how prevalent that opinion is, though.

Edit: That also wasn't dealing with advertisements. Still, isn't the main reason ads aren't considered offers is because of quantity issues? Is that the same problem if it was also posted in a store over an actual quantity of items? Maybe the original advertisement wasn't an offer, but because it was posted in the store it could be construed as one... or maybe as a price list that causes an offer by the P in this case by "ordering" 20 of them.

Dang, I don't know. Law school is hard. So glad I don't have MC tests.

Gonna go with D. The Ad wasn't an offer - not specific enough (is there a max? is it for every store? how long does the sale last) to be considered a firm offer to the public. I'd argue under that soda points case where the guy thought he was gonna get a harrier jet that you can't expect to just walk in and get a million packages of food if you want.

Buyer offered to buy 20, the other guy counteroffered with 5, buyer accepted by taking the food and change. That's the only K here, imo.

I think the best answer would be, no K.

The store's ad was too indefinite to be an offer and under the context of an advertisement, courts are unlikely to find intent to be bound (thus UCC exception cannot apply).

Closest would be (D), but I think there was no K, PERIOD. If the K is said to be for 5, that means:
(1) The ad was not an offer
(2) The customer's $200 was the initial offer
(3) The store's $50 (or 5 meals) was the counteroffer (turning customer into offeree)
(4) THe customer accepted the counteroffer.

#1-3 is plausible, but as matter of fact, #4 doesn't appear to have happened. You cannot say there was a K for 5 meals.

I can also see case for (B). See Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball.

OP, where is the question from???

lawyerwannabe wrote:Answer is likely (b).

The advertisement constitutes a unilateral contract in which the grocery store promises these meals at a certain price. The grocery store could reasonably expect the promise of this price to induce customers to come to the grocery store and purchase the meals. There is no expectation of negotiation and it would be inefficient for the general public, to which the advertisement was made, to rely on the promise only to find out that the offer would not be enforced (remember, by going to the grocery store the offeree is not pursuing other opportunities like going to other grocery stores with their own deals). Therefore, a contract was formed when the customer went to the grocery store and placed the meals in his/her cart. The customer performed in accordance with the advertisement and is entitled to purchase as many of these meals as he/she pleases at the advertised price.

B is stating that the offer is the advertisement, and the acceptance is the buyer removing the 20 meals from the packaged meals bin -- but there is no consideration here, and the argument for acceptance, at this stage, is weak at best. Has the buyer really accepted the goods simply taking them from the bin? What types of implications would this have on both the buyer and the seller? There are a lot of policy arguments you could make here as to why this shouldn't constitute an acceptance, but I don't think you even have to get that far.

B is also wrong for other reasons already articulated in this thread. D is the BEST answer, but it's not 100% accurate either. You'll find in law school, sometimes the best answer in a multiple choice scenario is also debatable, but the correct answer is usually the one that requires the fewest assumptions. A and C flat out get the law wrong, so these answers are also incorrect.

D is the right answer.



If it helps at all, I got an A+ in Contracts.

Edit: Made my post a little more concrete and comprehensible.