10/13/2026

 

Samuel Clifford

 

Occasion:

 

On April 6, 1956 the Great Minneapolis Surplus Store in Minneapolis, Minnesota posted an advertisement in a newspaper that stated:

 

“Saturday 9 A.M. Sharp 3 Brand New Fur Coats Worth to $100.00. First Come First Served $1 Each.”

 

Again on April 13, the following Saturday, they posted:

 

“Saturday 9 A.M. 2 Brand New Pastel Mink 3-Skin Scarfs Selling for $89.50 Out they go Saturday. Each ... $1.00 1 Black Lapin Stole Beautiful, worth $139.50 ... $1.00”

 

Adjusted for inflation from 1956 to 2026, the advertised price of $1 would be about $12.19 today. The Black Lapin stole valued at $139.50 would be worth roughly $1,700 in today's dollars, while the fur coats advertised as worth up to $100 would be worth about $1,219 today. In other words, the store was advertising luxury items worth between about $1,200 and $1,700 for only about $12 each.

Lefkowitz (the plaintiff) arrived at the store on both Saturdays with a legal tender to purchase the items. However, the defendant (Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.) declined the plaintiff from purchasing the item and cited a supposed “house rule” that limited the advertisement to women. Lefkowitz sued to recover the value of the item he was entitled to purchase, arguing that the advertisement was a binding offer that he had accepted by being the first customer to comply with its terms.

 

Legal Issue: Did the defendant’s advertisement constitute an offer?

 

Holding and Reasoning: 

 

The court upheld the judgment for the Black Lapin stole because its value was established in the advertisement as $139.50. Since the store breached the contract, the court could calculate damages: the value of the stole minus the $1 purchase price, resulting in a recovery of $138.50. The court denied recovery for the fur coats because their value was too uncertain. The advertisement stated only that the coats were "Worth to $100," which meant they could be worth any amount up to $100. Because the actual value of the coats was not proven, the court found the damages to be speculative and could not award compensation for them. The court held that both advertisements were sufficiently definite to constitute offers and that the store could not rely on its unadvertised "women only" house rule. However, Lefkowitz recovered damages only for the stole because its value was proven, whereas the value of the fur coats was uncertain and therefore not recoverable.

 

Implications for Businesses:

 

If an advertisement is definite about the item, quantity, price, and method of acceptance, a court may treat it as a binding offer rather than mere marketing. Businesses cannot simply refuse to honor such offers once a customer has accepted them according to the stated terms. The store lost because its "women only" rule was not included in the advertisement. After a customer accepts an offer, a business cannot add new eligibility requirements, limitations, or conditions that were never communicated.