legal memo 法律备忘录(10)

legal memo

Loman's president, Willi Loman, stated that the store occasionally gives rain checks when it is possible to replenish supplies of an item that Loman's can purchase at a discount. In this case, the manufacturer had discontinued the line of coats and Loman's was not prepared to sell other, designer leather coats at such a drastic markdown. Loman expressed concern 11 that, if the shopper's interpretation were to hold, Loman's would have to reconsider its marketing strategies; she had assumed that the advertised terms applied while supplies lasted. She asks whether Loman's would have any contractual obligation under these circumstances. 12

DISCUSSION

13 Loman's Fashions has been sued by a shopper for a breach of contract for its failure to sell a designer leather coat that had been advertised for sale at a substantially marked-down price. Loman's contends that the advertisement was intended to apply while supplies of the item lasted, and that is it not obligated to sell the shopper a comparably valued coat at the advertised price. The issue in this case is whether a retailer's advertisement will be considered to be an offer that may be turned into a binding contract by a shopper who signifies an intention to purchase the items described in the advertisement. A court would likely conclude that the shopper did not state a cause of action for breach of contract because the advertisement did not constitute an offer which, upon acceptance, could be turned into a contract but rather and invitation to negotiate.

14 In New York, the rule is well settled that an advertisement is merely an invitation to enter into negotiations, and is not an offer that may be turned into a contract by a person who communicates an intention to purchase the advertised item. Geismar v. Abraham & Strauss, 439 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (Dist. Ct. Suffolk Co. 1981); Lovett v. Frederick Loeser & Co., 207 N.Y.S.753 (Manhattan Mun. Ct. 1924); Schenectady Stove Co. v. Holbrook, 101 N.Y. 45 (1885); People v. Gimbel Bros., Inc., 115

N.Y.S.2d 857 (Manhattan Ct. Spec. Sess. 1952). The only general test is the inquiry whether the facts show that some performance was promised in positive terms in return for something requested. Lovett, 207 N.Y.S.2d at 755. However, a purchaser may not make a valid contract by mere acceptance of a "proposition." Schenectady Stove Co., 101 N.Y. at 48. Nor does the purchaser have the right to select an item which the seller does not have in stock or is not willing to sell at a reduced price. Lovett, 207 N.Y.S. at 757. 15

16 An offer to contract must be complete and definite in its material terms; a general advertisement that merely lists items for sale is at best an invitation to negotiate unless it promises to sell an item in return for something requested. In Schenectady Stove Co., for example, the plaintiff delivered to defendant a catalogue of prices containing a statement of terms of sale, but the catalogue did not state the amount of goods which plaintiff was willing to sell on those terms. Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeals held that no contract was ever made between the parties with respect to an order that defendant submitted because the plaintiff had not made an offer that was complete and definite in all material terms. Hence, it was not possible for the defendant to make a valid contract by mere acceptance of a "proposition." 101 N.Y. at 48. Similarly, in Lovett, a department store advertised that it would sell, deliver, and install certain "wellknown standard makes of radio receivers at 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. reduction" from advertised list prices. The plaintiff had demanded a particular model of radio that was not listed in the ad, and the defendant had declined to sell it at the reduced price. 207 N.Y.S. at 754. The court held that an advertisement by a department store was not an offer but an invitation to all persons that the advertiser was ready to receive offers for the goods upon the stated terms, reasoning that such a general advertisement was distinguishable from an offer of a reward or other payment in return for some requested performance. Id. at 755-56. The court further held that, even assuming the plaintiff's "acceptance" turned the offer into a contract, the purchaser did not have the right to select the item which the defendant did not have in stock or was not willing to sell at a reduced price. Id. at 756-57.

17 Loman's advertisement did not contain a promise to sell the leather coats in exchange for some requested act or promise. By its terms, the advertisement announced that it had a stock of coats to sell, and described the coats as a manufacturer's closeout selling at a substantially reduced price. 18 Nor did the ad give the public an option to choose any comparably priced leather coat if the advertised coats were no longer available. As the court noted in Lovett, 19 a prospective purchaser does not have the right to select items that the retailer does not have in stock or is not willing to sell at a reduced price. Lovett, 207 N.Y.S. at 757.

20 The claimant here might argue that the advertisement did not contain limiting language, for example, that the coats were for sale while supplies lasted 21 . However, the ad indicated that the store, opening for business on the day of the sale at 7 a.m., was catering to early morning shoppers. By announcing that "the early bird catches the savings," the ad could fairly be read to mean that the supplies were not unlimited. 22

10