Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store

The Great Minneapolis Surplus Store published a newspaper advertisement offering three brand-new fur coats worth $100 each for $1 each, first come first served. Morris Lefkowitz was the first to arrive at the store on the designated day and demanded to purchase a coat. The store refused to sell to him, claiming a 'house rule' that the offer was intended for women only. The store published a similar advertisement for a fur stole the following week, and again refused to sell to Lefkowitz when he appeared first.

The court distinguished between advertisements that are merely invitations to negotiate and those that constitute offers. When an advertisement is clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it constitutes an offer that can be accepted by performing the specified act. Here, the advertisement identified the specific goods, the price ($1), and the method of acceptance (first come first served). These terms left nothing open for further negotiation, making it an offer rather than an invitation to treat. The court further held that the store could not impose conditions after the fact that were not part of the original offer, as this would defeat the reasonable expectations of those who relied on the published terms.

Lefkowitz became the leading American authority on when advertisements constitute binding offers. The clear, definite, and explicit test has been widely adopted and applied to advertisements, promotional offers, and reward situations. The case is also important for its holding that conditions not stated in the original offer cannot be imposed retroactively. It has influenced the development of consumer protection law and advertising regulation.