expectationvsreality

179 readers

1 users here now

founded 2 years ago

754

Subway sued for exaggerating meat by 200% (files.catbox.moe)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

86 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://www.scribd.com/document/785653198/Subway-lawsuit

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I did a paper on that in uni and was wondering why the hell Pepsi did not lose. It was a technicality but I don't think they would win again in this day and age.

You're way off on this. It wasn't a close case back then, and since then the law has since shifted considerably towards Pepsi on this (advertising is very rarely construed as an actual offer in the contractual sense), so that it would be an even more lopsided win for Pepsi today.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well that's just silly from the opinion of a random numbered citizen.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Well I'm actually sitting at a computer right now so I might as well provide citations in support of what I was saying.

It wasn’t a close case back then

Here's the judicial ruling. Note that the plaintiff lost on three independent issues, each of which was enough by itself for Pepsi to win:

Advertisements are almost never binding offers, and this ad didn't fall within the requirements to be a binding offer. In fact, even order forms and pricing lists/catalogs printed by the merchant aren't binding offers by the merchant to sell the items on the list at the listed price, and must be affirmatively accepted by the merchant in order to form a binding contract.
No reasonable person would understand this joke as an offer, even if it weren't an advertisement, so even if analyzed outside of the advertising context Pepsi would still win.
There's no written contract, and contracts for the sale of physical goods worth over $500 require a written contract. The actual written materials in the points program all indicated that the only items available are those within the points catalog, and there was no Harrier jet in the actual printed catalog.

Then, on appeal, three other appellate judges unanimously ruled that the district court got it exactly right.