Watch the following video which provides a look at how some businesses are stretching the law

onymous 

Week 1 Discussion 

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

Overall Rating:

1

PPlease respond to the following:

Watch the following video which provides a look at how some businesses are stretching the law.

Top 10 Misleading Marketing Tactics (12:35)

Based on your own experiences, the video, or a news story, relate a time when you believe that the law affected a business. Describe the events, the law, and how the court did or should resolve your example. What sources of law would have created or solved the problem you described? Be sure to support your response with specifics from the reading.

I can remember a lawsuit in 1999 when a man sued PepsiCo Incorporated for not honoring their advertisement to pay out for an AV-8 Harrier II jump jet for 7 million points from the purchase of Pepsi products. PepsiCo, Inc. launched a marketing campaign in 1996 that promised to give a person who collected 7 million Pepsi Points a new fighter jet. The plaintiff Leonardo did the math and realized that he needed $700,000 to get 7 million Pepsi Points. He was able to convince investors to give him the money. Leonardo then mailed to PepsiCo Incorporated 15 labels and a check for $700,000 for the purchase of 7 million points. In return, the company would have to send him a jet advertise on their promotional campaign that was valued at $23 Million. This would have been a significant return on the investment. Pepsi Co Incorporated responded back with a letter to the plaintiff advising that the ad was just a joke. Not too many people paid attention to the marketing advertisement no one would think to buy 7 million Pepsi point. Leonardo was smart and took legal action against the company.

Based on the dynamics for the “Leonardo v. PepsiCo, Inc.” lawsuit, allegations were brought against the company for breach of contract and fraud. Based on the Court’s findings, it was found that no reasonable person could never expect or believe a company would turn over a $23 million dollar jet in return for $700,000. The court also concluded that the statutes of frauds requirement were not fulfilled because there was not a written agreement between the parties.

Leonardo’s lawsuit against the company was not a success and the courts granted judgment for PepsiCo and added that the commercial should not have been taken seriously because the pilot in a commercial was not capable of flying a jet. The source of law that would have created a solve the problem would have been contract law. If there had been a binding contract between Leonardo and PepsiCo for the actual jet in return for 7 million PepsiCo points, it would have been a clear-cut case.

Bottom of Form