3.3.3.2 Notes - Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. | rauvinj | August 28, 2012

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

3.3.3.2 Notes - Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.

Original Creator: Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman Current Version: rauvinj
1

NOTE

2

Consult 56 Mich. L. Rev. 1016. On bait advertising, see 69 Yale L.J. 830 (1960); see further New York General Business Law ch. 22-A.

3

A sees in the display window of a shop an article marked $5. When he asks for it, the shopkeeper realizes that the wrong price tag has been affixed and that the article should have been marked $15. He refuses to sell the article for $5. Is he bound? No, according to Professor Winfield, commenting on the South African case of Crawley v. Rex, [1909] Transvaal L.R. 1005. Some Aspects of Offer and Acceptance, 55 L.Q. Rev. 499, 516-518 (1939): "a shop is a place for bargaining and not for compulsory sales." See further, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd., (1953) 1 Q.B. 401; Kahn, Some Mysteries of Offer and Acceptance, 72 S.A.L.J. 246, 251 (1955).

4

A newspaper invites its readers to submit letters on matters of public interest to its letters-to-the-editor column. A reader sends in a signed letter on a campaign issue, giving his address. Is the paper in breach of contract if it refuses to publish it? Wall v. World Pub. Co., 263 P.2d 1010 (Okla. 1953).

5

On sales by auction, see, U.C.C. ยง2-328.

Close

Annotated Text Information

February 15, 2015

3.3.3.2 Notes - Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.

3.3.3.2 Notes - Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.

Author Stats

rauvinj

Expand
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large