Connection lost
Server error
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
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
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
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