Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.

jump jet, alleged to be owed to the plaintiff. {{quote box | align = right | width = 24em | salign = right In the mid-1990s, Pepsi faced competition from Coca-Cola, and sought to attract a younger audience. In March 1996, Pepsi began the Pepsi Stuff promotional campaign, allowing customers to accrue Pepsi Points that could, in turn, be redeemed for items such as T-shirts and leather jackets. These points could be earned through purchasing Pepsi products, with labels attached to the boxes of such products. To advertise the promotion, Pepsi released a series of television commercials; one of these commercials showcased a computer-generated Pepsi-branded AV-8 Harrier II, a Harrier jet manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. The commercial, which offered the jet for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points, caught the attention of John Leonard, a 21-year-old business student. In place of a label, the promotion allowed Pepsi Points to be directly purchased for 10¢ per point, a detail noticed by Leonard, who convinced five investors to lend him a total of $700,000. ==Procedural history==

The claim alleged both breach of contract and fraud. The case was originally brought in Florida, but eventually heard in New York. The defendant, PepsiCo, moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Among other claims made, Leonard claimed that a federal judge was incapable of deciding on the matter, and that instead the decision had to be made by a jury consisting of, among others, members of the "Pepsi Generation" to whom the advertisement would allegedly constitute an offer. ==Judgment==

The court, presided over by Judge Kimba Wood, rejected Leonard's claims and denied recovery on several grounds, including: • It was found that the advertisement featuring the jet did not constitute an offer under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. • The court found that no reasonable person could have believed that the company seriously intended to convey a jet worth roughly $37.4 million for $700,000, i.e., that it was mere puffery. • The value of the alleged contract meant that it fell under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds, but the statute's requirement for a written agreement between the parties was not fulfilled, so a contract had not been formed. In justifying its conclusion that the commercial was "evidently done in jest" and that "The notion of traveling to school in a Harrier Jet is an exaggerated adolescent fantasy," the court made several observations regarding the nature and content of the commercial, including: • "The callow youth featured in the commercial is a highly improbable pilot, one who could barely be trusted with the keys to his parents' car, much less the prized aircraft of the United States Marine Corps." • "The teenager's comment that flying a Harrier Jet to school 'sure beats the bus' evinces an improbably insouciant attitude toward the relative difficulty and danger of piloting a fighter plane in a residential area." • "No school would provide landing space for a student's fighter jet, or condone the disruption the jet's use would cause." The court also stated that: The decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued a brief, per curiam opinion concluding, "We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Wood's opinion." == Aftermath ==

Pepsi never cashed the check, so there was no case for fraud. Pepsi continued to air the commercial, but it updated the cost of the Harrier Jet to 700 million Pepsi Points and added a clarifying "Just Kidding" disclaimer. The Pentagon stated that the Harrier Jet would not be sold to civilians without "demilitarization". On November 17, 2022, a docuseries about the case titled ''Pepsi, Where's My Jet?'' was released on Netflix. ==References==