John Leonard Vs Pepsi Co

Based on this information, it is easy to conclude that there was no written agreement between the two parties. Furthermore, on legal grounds, the advertisement cannot substantiate the plaintiff’s claim that an offer was made. On these grounds, PepsiCo is liable for nothing.
The next question is whether Pepsi actually made an offer. When you take such postulates into consideration, it creates a lot of ambiguity about the commercial being an actual offer. In the catalog that PepsiCo issued, the jet was not included as one of the gifts which could be collected. Thus the ad was not an offer, largely because it was not included in the Pepsi Stuff Catalogue that provides further information about the Pepsi Points program. Furthermore, the law on such issues is that if an offer is made that is clearly meant to be a joke and interpreted as such by an objective standard. it does not constitute a binding offer. Thus, PepsiCo again is safe on these grounds. However, John Leonard interpreted the ad as an actual offer and tried to capitalize on it. Based on our conclusion, the plaintiff’s understanding of the commercial as an offer should be rejected because the courts would find that no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers a reward of a Harrier Jet.
Moving on to the infamous call made by Leonard regarding the details of the offer, he was informed about the procedure of amassing Pepsi points, and at no time was he corroborated that he would receive a Harrier Jet. PepsiCo had already put this in writing in its catalog, both on how to gather points and what would be up for grabs. Hence, Leonard’s call seems to have no legal significance except for that fact that they imply a favor in Pepsi’s camp.
But let’s adopt a new vantage point, one that reflects the views of the plaintiff.