Legal Case Brief
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Inc (1957) 86 NW 2d 689
FORMATION OF CONTRACT – OFFER OF SALE
Facts
The defendant placed an advertisement in the paper for the sale of fur, stating that it would be sold on a ‘first come first served’ basis. The claimant was the first to respond to the advertisement, but the defendant refused to sell on the basis that it was a ‘house rule’ to sell only to female customers. The claimant brought a claim for breach of contract, contending that the defendant was bound by its ‘first come first served’ promise.
Issues
The issue was whether the advertisement constituted an offer of sale (in which case the contract was completely formed upon the claimant’s acceptance) or merely an invitation to treat (in which case there was no contract).
Decision/Outcome
Allowing the claim, the court held that a binding obligation on the defendant arose from the specific language of the advertisement. The test applied to distinguish an offer from an invitation to treat was that of mutuality of obligation: whether, on the facts of the case, a performance had been promised in return for a performance which was requested. In this case, the advertisement was an offer that the defendant would transfer the goods to the first person to respond, and as such, its terms could not be changed once it had been accepted and the contract was formed without the agreement of the other party. The defendant therefore did not have the right to impose new conditions which were not contained in the published offer after acceptance.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issues, and outcome of Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Inc 86 NW 2d 689 (Minn 1957). The case remains a frequently cited authority in comparative contract law discussions, particularly in the context of advertisements as offers versus invitations to treat. As a US (Minnesota) decision, it has no direct binding authority in English law, but it is commonly used in UK legal education to illustrate and contrast with the English position established in cases such as Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204 and Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256. The article does not claim the case is binding in English law, and no subsequent development has altered the case’s standing or the legal principles it illustrates. No material updates are required, though readers should remain aware that this is a US authority and that English law generally treats advertisements as invitations to treat rather than offers, save in exceptional circumstances such as those in Carlill.
