## Facts

- A retail store placed newspaper advertisements offering specific fur items for $1 each at “Saturday 9 A.M.,” stating “First Come First Served.”
- One advertisement offered three “brand new fur coats” for $1 each; another offered two mink scarfs and one black lapin stole for $1 each, describing the stole as “worth $139.50.”
- Morris Lefkowitz went to the store on each advertised Saturday, was first to arrive at the relevant counter, and tendered $1 to buy the advertised items.
- The store refused to sell, asserting a “house rule” that the advertised bargains were for women only; this limitation was not stated in the advertisements.
- Lefkowitz sued for breach of contract in municipal court.
- The trial court awarded damages for the lapin stole (value $139.50 minus $1) but denied recovery for the fur coats as too speculative in value.
- The store appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the store’s newspaper advertisements were enforceable offers or merely invitations to negotiate.
2. Whether the store could rely on an undisclosed “house rule” (women-only sales) to refuse performance after the customer complied with the advertised terms.
3. Whether damages were properly limited to the lapin stole based on proof of value.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.
- The advertisements were “clear, definite, and explicit” and left nothing open for negotiation; they constituted offers.
- Lefkowitz accepted by performing the specified act (appearing first at the stated time and tendering $1), forming a binding contract.
- The store could not add new conditions after acceptance; the unstated women-only “house rule” did not defeat the contract.
- The award for the lapin stole was upheld because its value was sufficiently established; recovery for the coats was properly denied because their value was uncertain.

## Legal Principles

- Advertisements are generally invitations to deal, but they become offers when their terms are clear, definite, explicit, and omit matters requiring further negotiation.
- A “first come, first served” term, coupled with a specified quantity, time, place, and price, can identify the offeree and make an advertisement capable of acceptance by performance.
- In a unilateral-contract setting, the requested performance constitutes acceptance and completes the contract.
- An offeror may not impose additional, unstated conditions after acceptance; undisclosed internal policies cannot modify an accepted offer.
- Contract damages require proof of value with reasonable certainty; courts may deny recovery where valuation evidence is speculative.

## Conclusion

The court held that the store’s specific “first come, first served” advertisements were enforceable offers accepted by Lefkowitz’s performance, and the store’s unstated women-only policy could not justify refusal; damages were affirmed only for the item whose value was adequately proven.


Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1957)