Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
tl;dr: A store advertised a fur stole for $1, “first come, first served.” When a man was first to arrive and accept, the store refused. The court held the advertisement was a binding offer.
Legal Significance: Establishes that clear, definite, and explicit advertisements inviting specific performance can constitute binding offers, not mere invitations to treat, creating an enforceable contract upon acceptance.
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (Defendant) published two newspaper advertisements. The first, on April 6, 1956, offered “3 Brand New Fur Coats Worth to $100.00” for “$1 Each” on a “First Come First Served” basis. The second, on April 13, 1956, offered “1 Black Lapin Stole Beautiful, worth $139.50” for “$1.00,” also “First Come First Served.” On both occasions, Mr. Lefkowitz (Plaintiff) was the first person to present himself at the store, ready to pay the $1 price. Defendant refused to sell, citing a “house rule” that the offers were for women only, a condition not mentioned in the advertisements. The trial court disallowed Plaintiff’s claim for the fur coats due to speculative value but awarded $138.50 (value of stole less $1 purchase price) for the black lapin stole, finding its value was established. Defendant appealed, arguing the advertisements were not offers.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the defendant’s newspaper advertisement for a black lapin stole, stating a specific quantity, value, price, and the condition “First Come First Served,” constitute a binding offer that the plaintiff accepted by being the first to tender the purchase price?
Yes. The advertisement for the black lapin stole was a clear, definite, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the defendant’s newspaper advertisement for a black lapin stole, stating a specific quantity, value, price, and the condition “First Come First Served,” constitute a binding offer that the plaintiff accepted by being the first to tender the purchase price?
Conclusion
This case is a key precedent illustrating that advertisements can transcend mere Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull
Legal Rule
Where an offer, such as one in an advertisement, is clear, definite, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit es
Legal Analysis
The court determined that while generally advertisements are considered invitations to make Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt i
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- While most advertisements are invitations to make an offer, they can