Case brief summary
A newspaper ad can be a real offer, not just an invitation to negotiate, if its terms are clear, definite, and leave nothing to discuss, and once someone accepts it on those terms a contract is formed.
Facts
A store advertised fur coats and a stole for $1 each to the first customers on Saturday. A man arrived first both times and offered $1, but the store refused, saying it was for women only.
Procedural history
The trial court ruled for the buyer, awarding damages for the stole but not the coats. The store's request for a new trial was denied, so it appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Issue
Was the store's newspaper ad a binding offer that the buyer could accept just by showing up first and offering to pay, or was it merely an invitation for people to make offers that the store could still turn down?
Holding
The stole ad was a clear, specific offer, and the buyer's actions accepted it, creating a binding contract. The store could not add a hidden 'women only' rule afterward.
Reasoning
Since the ad gave exact terms with nothing to negotiate, the buyer's timely action completed the deal before any new condition could apply. The coat claim failed because its value was too unclear to measure damages.
Opinions
Majority (Murphy): A sufficiently clear and definite newspaper ad can be an offer, and showing up first with payment ready accepts it, forming a binding contract the seller cannot later add conditions to.