Harrier Jet Case Study
This case is the about a promotional campaign that was conduct by PepsiCo, the producer and distributor of the soft drink Pepsi and Diet Pepsi. The advertisement which was entitle “Pepsi Stuff”, encourage the watcher to collect Pepsi Point and redeem these points for merchandise. The Plaintiff who is a resident of Settle Washington was a part of the test market and he saw the commercial that he contends constitutes an offer of a Harrier Jet for seven million points.
2. What is the core legal issue the court needed resolve? How did it resolve the issue?
The court ruled that the Harrier Jet commercial was just an advertisement meant as an offer to negotiate and not as a contract. The core legal issue is whether an advertisement can be considered a serious offer. …show more content…
Do you agree with how the court applied the “reasonable person standard” in this case? I agree with the reasonable person standard because a reasonable person would not have considered the commercial binding as the plaintiff did in this case. This was not the only person who watch the advertisement and the public does not share the same opinion as the plaintiff.
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 included a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen during the advertisement portion with the jet stating that it was not a real prize. This would have disregarded any likelihood of a suit. I believe that they did act ethically in refuting that the Harrier Jet was a real prize. The commercial to any reasonable person rendered a sense of humor during the portion with the jet and everyone should have known that it was a joke. I don’t think that Pepsi had any obligation to offer a jet to
2. What is the core legal issue the court needed resolve? How did it resolve the issue?
The court ruled that the Harrier Jet commercial was just an advertisement meant as an offer to negotiate and not as a contract. The core legal issue is whether an advertisement can be considered a serious offer. …show more content…
Do you agree with how the court applied the “reasonable person standard” in this case? I agree with the reasonable person standard because a reasonable person would not have considered the commercial binding as the plaintiff did in this case. This was not the only person who watch the advertisement and the public does not share the same opinion as the plaintiff.
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 included a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen during the advertisement portion with the jet stating that it was not a real prize. This would have disregarded any likelihood of a suit. I believe that they did act ethically in refuting that the Harrier Jet was a real prize. The commercial to any reasonable person rendered a sense of humor during the portion with the jet and everyone should have known that it was a joke. I don’t think that Pepsi had any obligation to offer a jet to