Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.

Last updated

Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.
USDCSDNY.svg
Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Full case nameJohn D.R. Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.
DecidedAugust 5, 1999
Docket nos.96-cv-5320; 96-cv-9069
Citation(s)88 F. Supp. 2d 116
Case history
Subsequent action(s)Affirmed, 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Kimba Wood

Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116, (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff'd 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000), more widely known as the Pepsi Points case, is an American contract law case regarding offer and acceptance. The case was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1999; its judgment was written by Kimba Wood.

Contents

In 1996, PepsiCo began a promotional loyalty program in which customers could earn Pepsi Points which could be traded for physical items. A television commercial for the loyalty program displayed the commercial's protagonist flying to school in a McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II vertical take off jet aircraft, valued at $37.4 million at the time, which could be redeemed for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points. The plaintiff, John Leonard, discovered these could be directly purchased from Pepsi at 10¢ per point. Leonard delivered a check for $700,008.50 to PepsiCo, attempting to purchase the jet. PepsiCo initially refuted Leonard's offer, citing the humorous nature of the offer in the advertisement. Leonard then sued PepsiCo, Inc. in an effort to enforce the offer and acceptance perceived by Leonard to be made in the advertisement. In her judgment, Wood sided with PepsiCo, noting the frivolous and improbable nature of landing a fighter jet in a school zone that was portrayed by the protagonist. PepsiCo would re-release the advertisement, valuing the jet at 700,000,000 Pepsi Points.

Background

An AV-8 Harrier II jump jet, alleged to be owed to the plaintiff. United States Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier II hovering.jpg
An AV-8 Harrier II jump jet, alleged to be owed to the plaintiff.

The Harrier Jet is not yet visible, but the observer senses the presence of a mighty plane as the extreme winds generated by its flight create a paper maelstrom in a classroom devoted to an otherwise dull physics lesson. Finally, the Harrier Jet swings into view and lands by the side of the school building, bombing everything in sight next to a bicycle rack. Several students run for cover, and the velocity of the wind strips one hapless faculty member down to his underwear. While the faculty member is being deprived of his dignity, the voiceover announces: "Now the more Pepsi you drink, the more great stuff you're gonna get."

Wood's statement of facts, Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116

In the mid-1990s, Pepsi faced competition from Coca-Cola, and sought to attract a younger audience. [1] In March 1996, Pepsi began the Pepsi Stuff promotional campaign, allowing customers to accrue Pepsi Points that could, in turn, be redeemed for items such as T-shirts and leather jackets. These points could be earned through purchasing Pepsi products, with labels attached to the boxes of such products. [2] The campaign was the largest in Pepsi's history. [3] To advertise the promotion, Pepsi released a series of television commercials; one of these commercials showcased a computer-generated Pepsi-branded AV-8 Harrier II, a Harrier jet manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. [2] [4] The commercial, which offered the jet for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points, caught the attention of John Leonard, a 21-year-old business student. In place of a label, the promotion allowed Pepsi Points to be directly purchased for 10¢ per point, a detail noticed by Leonard, who convinced five investors to lend him a total of $700,000. [2] Leonard sent a check for $700,008.50 (including $10 for shipping and handling), and 15 labels, per promotion rules. The offer was refused by Pepsi, who referred to the promotion of the Harrier jet in the commercial as "fanciful" and stated its intention was to create a "humorous and entertaining ad". [5]

Procedural history

The claim alleged both breach of contract and fraud. The case was originally brought in Florida, but eventually heard in New York. The defendant, PepsiCo, moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Among other claims made, Leonard claimed that a federal judge was incapable of deciding on the matter, and that instead the decision had to be made by a jury consisting of members of the "Pepsi Generation" to whom the advertisement would allegedly constitute an offer. [6]

Judgment

The court, presided over by Judge Kimba Wood, rejected Leonard's claims and denied recovery on several grounds, including:

  1. It was found that the advertisement featuring the jet did not constitute an offer under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts .
  2. The court found that no reasonable person could have believed that the company seriously intended to convey a jet worth roughly $37.4 million for $700,000, i.e., that it was mere puffery.
  3. The value of the alleged contract meant that it fell under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds, but the statute's requirement for a written agreement between the parties was not fulfilled, so a contract had not been formed.

In justifying its conclusion that the commercial was "evidently done in jest" and that "The notion of traveling to school in a Harrier Jet is an exaggerated adolescent fantasy," the court made several observations regarding the nature and content of the commercial, including:

The court also stated that:

In light of the Harrier Jet's well-documented function in attacking and destroying surface and air targets, armed reconnaissance and air interdiction, and offensive and defensive anti-aircraft warfare, depiction of such a jet as a way to get to school in the morning is clearly not serious even if, as plaintiff contends, the jet is capable of being acquired 'in a form that eliminates [its] potential for military use.' [7]

The decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued a brief, per curiam opinion concluding, "We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Wood's opinion." [8]

Aftermath

Pepsi never cashed the check, so there was no case for fraud. Pepsi continued to air the commercial, but it updated the cost of the Harrier Jet to 700 million Pepsi Points [9] and added a clarifying "Just Kidding" disclaimer. The Pentagon stated that the Harrier Jet would not be sold to civilians without "demilitarization", which, in the case of the Harrier, would have included stripping it of its ability to land and take off vertically. [10]

On November 17, 2022, a docuseries about the case titled Pepsi, Where's My Jet? was released on Netflix. [11]

Related Research Articles

<i>Carter v. Helmsley-Spear Inc.</i> American legal case

Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. 861 F. Supp. 303, rev'd 71 F.3d 77, cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 1824 (1996).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cola wars</span> Soft drink marketing rivalry

The Cola wars are the long-time rivalry between soft drink producers The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo, who have engaged in mutually-targeted marketing campaigns for the direct competition between each company's product lines, especially their flagship colas, Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Beginning in the late 1970s and into the 1980s, the competition escalated until it became known as the cola wars.

<i>Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co</i> English contract law case

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company[1893] 1 QB 256 is an English contract law decision by the Court of Appeal, which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is notable for its treatment of contract and of puffery in advertising, for its curious subject matter associated with medical quackery, and how the influential judges developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law student studies in the law of contract.

Trespass to chattels is a tort whereby the infringing party has intentionally interfered with another person's lawful possession of a chattel. The interference can be any physical contact with the chattel in a quantifiable way, or any dispossession of the chattel. As opposed to the greater wrong of conversion, trespass to chattels is argued to be actionable per se.

A clickwrap or clickthrough agreement is a prompt that offers individuals the opportunity to accept or decline a digitally-mediated policy. Privacy policies, terms of service and other user policies, as well as copyright policies commonly employ the clickwrap prompt. Clickwraps are common in signup processes for social media services like Facebook, Twitter or Tumblr, connections to wireless networks operated in corporate spaces, as part of the installation processes of many software packages, and in other circumstances where agreement is sought using digital media. The name "clickwrap" is derived from the use of "shrink wrap contracts" commonly used in boxed software purchases, which "contain a notice that by tearing open the shrinkwrap, the user assents to the software terms enclosed within".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pepsi Stuff</span> Global loyalty program launched by PepsiCo

Pepsi Stuff was a major loyalty program launched by PepsiCo, first in North America on March 28, 1996 and then around the world, featuring premiums — such as T-shirts, hats, denim and leather jackets, bags, and mountain bikes — that could be purchased with Pepsi Points through the Pepsi Stuff Catalog or online. Customers could acquire points from specially marked Pepsi packages and fountain cups. Additional points were sold both by Pepsi and by consumers, the latter mainly enabled by eBay. The first Pepsi Stuff promotion ended on October 31, 1996. It was relaunched 12 years later on February 1, 2008, ended on December 31, 2008, and was relaunched as Pepsi Pass in August 2015. Pepsi Stuff was relaunched on January 22, 2018 with retro editions of Pepsi, and ended on February 28, 2019.

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which public interest in learning about a historical figure's impressions of a historic event was held not to be sufficient to show fair use of material otherwise protected by copyright. Defendant, The Nation, had summarized and quoted substantially from A Time to Heal, President Gerald Ford's forthcoming memoir of his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon. When Harper & Row, who held the rights to A Time to Heal, brought suit, The Nation asserted that its use of the book was protected under the doctrine of fair use, because of the great public interest in a historical figure's account of a historic incident. The Court rejected this argument holding that the right of first publication was important enough to find in favor of Harper.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mistake (contract law)</span> Concept in contract law

In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully, can lead to the agreement in question being found void ab initio or voidable, or alternatively, an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts. Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: the 'unilateral mistake', the 'mutual mistake', and the 'common mistake'. The distinction between the 'common mistake' and the 'mutual mistake' is important.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Loretta Preska</span> American judge (born 1949)

Loretta A. Preska is an American lawyer who serves as a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Born in Albany, Preska received law degrees from Fordham University School of Law and New York University School of Law. She practiced law in New York City from 1973 to 1992 at the law firms of Cahill Gordon & Reindel and Hertzog, Calamari & Gleason. President George H. W. Bush appointed her to the district bench in 1992. She served as chief judge of the court for a seven-year term from 2009 to 2016, and took senior status in 2017. President George W. Bush nominated Preska to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2008, but the Senate did not act on the nomination.

Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases refers to a growing set of judicial precedents in American courts where personal jurisdiction has been asserted upon defendants based solely on their Internet activities. Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions, and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court.

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a complete ban on the advertising of alcohol prices was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and that the Twenty-first Amendment, empowering the states to regulate alcohol, did not lessen other constitutional restraints of state power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kimba Wood</span> American judge (born 1944)

Kimba Maureen Wood is an American judge who is a senior district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

<i>1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc.</i> American legal case

1-800 CONTACTS v. WhenU.com was a legal dispute beginning in 2002 over pop-up advertisements. It was brought by 1-800 Contacts, an online distributor of various brands of contact lenses against WhenU SaveNow, a maker of advertising software. The suit also named Vision Direct, one of WhenU advertising customers, as a co-defendant. 1-800 CONTACTS alleged that the advertisements provided by WhenU, which advertised competitors of 1-800 CONTACTS when people viewed the company's web site, were "inherently deceptive" and that one of the advertisements "misleads users into falsely believing the pop-up advertisements supplied by WhenU.com are in actuality advertisements authorized by and originating with the underlying Web site".

<i>CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.</i>

CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. was a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in 1997 that set an early precedent for granting online service providers the right to prevent commercial enterprises from sending unsolicited email advertising – also known as spam – to its subscribers. It was one of the first cases to apply United States tort law to restrict spamming on computer networks. The court held that Cyber Promotions' intentional use of CompuServe's proprietary servers to send unsolicited email was an actionable trespass to chattels and granted a preliminary injunction preventing the spammer from sending unsolicited advertisements to any email address maintained by CompuServe.

Waesche, Sheinbaum & O'Regan was a New York-based law firm focusing on international litigation and arbitration. It was co-founded in 1979 by Donald M. Waesche, Jr., Louis P. Sheinbaum and Francis M. O'Regan, partners from the Wall Street firm of Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston.

<i>School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz</i>

School of Visual Arts v. Diane Kuprewicz, 771 N.Y.S.2d 804 (2003), is a New York Supreme Court case in which it was held that sending and/or directing "large volumes of unsolicited job applications and pornographic e-mails" by defendant to plaintiff if it depletes hard disk space, drains processing power, and negatively impacts other system resources of the plaintiff is sufficient to establish "a cause of action for trespass to chattels." The ruling has been followed and cited in a number of cases in different jurisdictions.

<i>Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc</i> English contract law case

Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc [2003] EWCA Civ 323 is an English contract law case, concerning the availability of restitution damages for breach of contract.

Copyright protection is available to the creators of a range of works including literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works. Recognition of fictional characters as works eligible for copyright protection has come about with the understanding that characters can be separated from the original works they were embodied in and acquire a new life by featuring in subsequent works.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pepsi Number Fever</span> 1992 Philippines sales promotion

Pepsi Number Fever, also known as the 349 incident, was a promotion held by PepsiCo in the Philippines in 1992, which led to riots and the deaths of at least five people.

<i>Pepsi, Wheres My Jet?</i> Documentary miniseries about Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.

Pepsi, Where's My Jet? is an American Netflix original docuseries directed by Andrew Renzi. Its story explores the Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. court case. It premiered on Netflix on November 17, 2022.

References

  1. "Pepsi Introduces a New Look For Its International Markets". The New York Times . April 3, 1996. Retrieved November 25, 2022.
  2. 1 2 3 Haoues, Rachid (January 29, 2015). "Flashback 1996: Man sues Pepsi for not giving him a Harrier Jet". CBS News . Retrieved November 25, 2022.
  3. "'Pepsi Stuff' Campaign Set". The New York Times . March 27, 1996. Retrieved November 25, 2022.
  4. Chapman, Wilson (October 24, 2022). "Netflix Tackles the Single Dumbest Moment of the Cola Wars in 'Pepsi, Where's My Jet?'". IndieWire . Retrieved November 25, 2022.
  5. Parker, Matt (January 23, 2020). "Bad Math, Pepsi Points, and the Greatest Plane Non-Crash Ever". Wired . Retrieved November 25, 2022.
  6. Epstein, David (2006). Making and doing deals : contracts in context (2nd ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis Matthew Bender. p. 55. ISBN   978-0-8205-7044-0. OCLC   64453463.
  7. Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88F. Supp. 2d116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
  8. Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 210F.3d88 ( 2d Cir. 2000).
  9. Haoues, Rachid (January 29, 2015). "1996: Man sues Pepsi for not giving him the Harrier Jet from its commercial". CBS News . Retrieved May 23, 2016.
  10. Mikkelson, David (May 7, 2011). "Pepsi Harrier Giveaway". Snopes . Retrieved May 23, 2016.
  11. Fu, Eddie (October 24, 2022). "A Marketing Blitz Fizzes Out in Pepsi, Where's My Jet? Trailer: Watch". Consequence . Retrieved November 18, 2022.