Notes - Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. | Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman | August 28, 2012


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


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.

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).

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).

On sales by auction, see, U.C.C. §2-328.


Text Information

July 01, 2013

Author Stats

Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman

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