Chapter brief

In the case which needs to be brief I already uploaded it; and this is the discussion question:

-Please read this case:

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/JNContemporaryArtLLCvPhillipsAuctioneersLLC472FSupp3d88SDNY2020Co?1634784169

After you read the case, please write a short paragraph on whether you agree with this decision.

BRIEF: Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store – Case 10-2
ISSUE: Did the Great Minneapolis Surplus Store advertisement constitute a valid
offer, and if so, did the plaintiff’s actions show an acceptance?
FACTS: On two separate Saturdays following the publication of ads for a store, a
man went to the store and presented himself at the appropriate counter to buy a coat
and stole that were advertised. He indicated his readiness to pay the sale price of $ 1.
On both occasions, the store refused to sell the merchandise to the man, stating on the
first occasion that by a “house rule” the offer was intended for women only and sales
would not be made to men, and on the second visit that the knew the store’s house
rules. Damages were awarded to the man for breach of contract. The case was
appealed to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
RULE: Advertisements are generally not considered to be offers. However, where the
offer is clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it
constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract.
CONCLUSION:
The Court determined that the offer by defendant of the sale of the item was clear,
definite, and explicit, and left nothing open for negotiation. The man, having
successfully managed to comply with the terms of the advertisement, and having
offered the stated purchase price of the article, was entitled to performance on the part
of the store. The court here agreed with the trial court’s holding that the conduct of the
parties created sufficient mutuality of obligation to constitute a contract of sale.
CASE
17-2
Anticipatory Breach
HOCHSTER v. DE LA TOUR
Queen’s Bench of England, 1853
2 Ellis and Blackburn Reports 678
Lord Campbell, C. J.
[On April 12, 1852, Hochster contracted with De La Tour to
serve as a guide for De La Tour on his three-month trip
to Europe, beginning on June 1 at an agreed-upon salary. On
May 11, De La Tour notified Hochster that he would not
need Hochster’s services. He also refused to pay Hochster
any compensation. Hochster brings this action to recover
damages for breach of contract.]
On this motion * * * the question arises, Whether, if
there be an agreement between A. and B., whereby B.
engages to employ A. on and from a future day for a given
period of time, to travel with him into a foreign country
as a [guide], and to start with him in that capacity on that
day, A. being to receive a monthly salary during the contin-
uance of such service, B. may, before the day, refuse to per-
form the agreement and break and renounce it, so as to
entitle A. before the day to commence an action against B.
to recover damages for breach of the agreement; A. having
been ready and willing to perform it, till it was broken and
renounced by B.
***
If the plaintiff has no remedy for breach of the contract
unless he treats the contract as in force, and acts upon it
down to the 1st June, 1852, it follows that, till then, he must
enter into no employment which will interfere with his
promise “to start with the defendant on such travels on the
day and year” and that he must then be properly equipped in
all respects as a [guide] for a three months’ tour on the conti-
nent of Europe. But it is surely much more rational, and
more for the benefit of both parties, that, after the renuncia-
tion of the agreement by the defendant, the plaintiff should
be at liberty to consider himself absolved from any future
performance of it, retaining his right to sue for any damage
he has suffered from the breach of it. Thus, instead of
remaining idle and laying out money in preparations which
must be useless, he is at liberty to seek service under another338
employer, which would go in mitigation of the damages to
which he would otherwise be entitled for a breach of the con-
tract. It seems strange that the defendant after renouncing
the contract, and absolutely declaring that he will never act
under it, should be permitted to object that faith is given to
his assertion, and that an opportunity is not left to him of
changing his mind. ***
* * * The man who wrongfully renounces a contract
into which he has deliberately entered cannot justly
PART 2 CONTRACTS
complain if he is immediately sued for a compensation in
damage by the man whom he has injured: and it seems
reasonable to allow an option to the injured party, either
to sue immediately, or to wait till the time when the act
was to be done, still holding it as prospectively binding
for the exercise of this option, which may be advanta-
geous to the innocent party, and cannot be prejudicial to
the wrongdoer.nl
Judgment for plaintiff.