Judge(s) sitting Justice Murphy | Ruling court Minnesota Supreme Court | |
 | ||
Citation(s) 86 NW 2d 689 (Minn, 1957) Similar Gibson v Manchester City Coun, Partridge v Crittenden, Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boot, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke B, Fisher v Bell | ||
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 86 NW 2d 689 (Minn, 1957) is an American contract law case. It concerns the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat.
Contents
Facts
Great Minneapolis Surplus Store published an advertisement that said this.
On April 13, they published another advertisement in the same newspaper, as follows.
Mr. Lefkowitz was the first person to come on the Saturday after seeing the advertisement. He said he was ready to pay $1. But each time the store owner refused to sell, saying there was a "house rule" that it was for women only. The same advertisement was published the next week, and he arrived again. He was told that he knew the house rules and he would not get the coat.
Judgment
Justice Murphy held that the advertisement constituted an offer, which could not be withdrawn. He described the facts and gave his decision as follows.