Subject: Business Law

Topic: Leonard v. PepsiCo Inc. 88 F.Supp.2d 116 (1999) John D.R. LEONARD,
Plaintiff, v. PEPSICO, INC., Defendant. Nos. 96 Civ. 5320(KMW), 96 Civ. 9069(KMW).
United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 5, 1999.
Submitted by:
Shahzaib F19BB024-MB
Submitted to: Barrister Bilal Ramzan

Institute of Business & Information Technology, Punjab University,

Lahore
 Assignment 2
Briefly write down the facts of Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y.
1999)

In Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc., John D.R. Leonard brought a lawsuit against PepsiCo,
Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case
revolved around a promotional campaign called "Pepsi Points" launched by PepsiCo in 1995.
Under the Pepsi Points promotion, consumers could accumulate points by purchasing
Pepsi products and exchanging them for various merchandise. A television commercial was
aired as part of the campaign, which depicted a teenager accumulating Pepsi Points and
eventually redeeming them for a military jet.
John Leonard claimed that he had accumulated 7 million Pepsi Points and sought to
redeem them for the Harrier jet, as shown in the commercial. However, PepsiCo denied his
request, arguing that the advertisement was meant to be humorous and that the jet was never
intended to be part of the promotional campaign.
Leonard filed a lawsuit against PepsiCo, alleging breach of contract and deceptive
trade practices. He argued that PepsiCo’s commercial constituted an offer and that he had
accepted the offer by accumulating the required points.
The district court, in its decision, dismissed Leonard's claims. The court held that the
commercial was obviously intended as a joke and did not create a binding contract. It found
that no reasonable person would believe that they could actually redeem Pepsi Points for a
military jet. Therefore, PepsiCo was not obligated to fulfill Leonard's request for the Harrier
jet based on the points accumulated.

The court's ruling favored PepsiCo, concluding that there was no valid contract
between the parties, and dismissed Leonard's claims against the company.
.
 Assignment 3
Briefly write down the arguments raised by PepsiCo in its defense.
PepsiCo raised several arguments in its defense in the Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc. case:

1. Advertisement as a Joke: PepsiCo argued that the television commercial featuring

the Harrier jet was obviously intended as a humorous exaggeration and not a serious
offer. They contended that no reasonable person would believe that accumulating
Pepsi Points could actually lead to obtaining a military jet.
2. Clear Language of the Offer: PepsiCo maintained that the terms and conditions of
the Pepsi Points promotion clearly outlined the available merchandise that could be
redeemed with accumulated points. They asserted that the Harrier jet was not listed as
one of the eligible items for redemption, further supporting their position that it was
not part of the offer.
3. Lack of Intention to Create a Contract: PepsiCo emphasized that the commercial
and promotional materials were not intended to create a binding contract. They argued
that the commercial's humorous nature and exaggerated scenario, coupled with the
absence of any serious language suggesting a contractual commitment, demonstrated
their lack of intention to be bound by such an offer.
4. Reasonable Expectations: PepsiCo contended that a reasonable person would
understand that the commercial was purely fictional and not a representation of actual
events. They asserted that it was clear the commercial was a creative and imaginative
depiction rather than a promise to provide a Harrier jet in exchange for Pepsi Points.

By presenting these arguments, PepsiCo aimed to establish that there was no binding
contract and that they were not obligated to fulfill John Leonard's request for the Harrier jet
based on the accumulated Pepsi Points.
 Assignment 4
Briefly discuss the decision of the court in Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116
(S.D.N.Y. 1999)

In the case of Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc., the court ultimately ruled in favor of PepsiCo and
dismissed John Leonard's claims. The court's decision was based on the following key points:
1. No Binding Contract: The court determined that the television commercial featuring
the Harrier jet was obviously intended as a humorous exaggeration and not a serious
offer. It concluded that no reasonable person would believe that accumulating Pepsi
Points could lead to obtaining a military jet. As a result, there was no valid contract
formed between Leonard and PepsiCo.
2. Context and Reasonable Expectations: The court considered the overall context of
the promotion and the commercial. It noted that the commercial was a fictional
representation, and the terms and conditions of the promotion clearly outlined the
eligible items for redemption. The absence of the Harrier jet from the list further
supported the court's finding that PepsiCo had no intention to include it as part of the
offer.
3. Lack of Serious Intent: The court found that PepsiCo’s intent in the commercial was
clearly not to make a serious offer but rather to entertain and amuse viewers. It
emphasized that the commercial's humorous nature, exaggerated scenario, and lack of
language suggesting a contractual commitment demonstrated PepsiCo’s lack of
serious intent.
Based on these considerations, the court concluded that PepsiCo was not obligated to fulfill
Leonard's request for the Harrier jet based on the accumulated Pepsi Points. It dismissed
Leonard's claims of breach of contract and deceptive trade practices, ruling in favor of
PepsiCo. The decision reinforced the principle that advertisements or promotional campaigns
that are obviously humorous or exaggerated are not typically considered binding offers, and
reasonable expectations play a significant role in contract formation.