Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. Case Brief
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 on a “first come, first served” basis. When a man was first to arrive and accept, the store refused to sell. The court held the specific advertisement was a binding offer that the man accepted through his performance.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a clear, definite, and explicit advertisement that leaves nothing for negotiation constitutes a binding offer, acceptance of which will form a contract. Performance by the offeree creates a binding obligation on the offeror.
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, Inc. (Defendant) published a newspaper advertisement stating: “Saturday 9 a.m. 1 Black Lapin Stole worth $139.50 * $1.00 First Come First Served.” Lefkowitz (Plaintiff) was the first person to arrive at the store on the specified date and time, prepared to pay the $1.00 purchase price. The defendant refused to sell the stole to the plaintiff, citing a “house rule” that the offer was intended for women only. This rule was not mentioned in the advertisement. The plaintiff had a similar experience the previous week with an advertisement for fur coats, which the defendant also refused to sell him. The trial court found the value of the stole was established by the advertisement and awarded the plaintiff damages equal to the advertised value less the $1 purchase price. The defendant appealed, arguing the advertisement was not a binding offer but merely an invitation to negotiate.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a newspaper advertisement that is clear, definite, and explicit, and which invites a specific performance, constitute a binding offer that can be accepted to form an enforceable contract?
Yes. The court held that the advertisement for the fur stole was 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 repreh
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
Does a newspaper advertisement that is clear, definite, and explicit, and which invites a specific performance, constitute a binding offer that can be accepted to form an enforceable contract?
Conclusion
This case provides a key exception to the general rule that advertisements Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ven
Legal Rule
While advertisements are generally construed as invitations for offers, an advertisement constitutes 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 re
Legal Analysis
The court distinguished this case from the general rule that advertisements are 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 in culpa qui officia de
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- While most advertisements are invitations to make an offer, they can