The article says the judge ruled it was not a binding offer for 3 reasons: 1. Advertisements are generally not considered offers in contract law. 2. The ad was obviously a joke. 3. An enforceable contract requires both parties’ signatures.
Which may seem to apply, but this was an offer to add a guarantee to the terms. Whereas merely advertising a price is just an invitation for the buyer to make you an offer. Here is an almost as famous case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_GB...
I am not surprised our fellow common law jurisdictions like the US reached the same conclusion.
The case law that makes up English civil law, especially the early stuff is really fascinating stuff to me. IANAL but understanding the contact law from these cases has won me several disputes in my professional life.
This really doesn't jive with what I know about contract law, so I checked the article, and it is more specific:
An enforceable contract requires both parties’ signatures: Under existing law, any contract for the sale of goods worth $500+ must be evidenced by writing; Pepsi did not sign anything.
Still, was Pepsi really selling something for more than $500? It's an exchange for Pepsi points (not cash), and even though you can buy them, are they equivalent to cash? Also, on top of that, has anyone signed anything the last time they bought a $500+ laptop, PS5 bundle, unlocked cell phone, etc.?
I know a contract has to meet all elements of a contact to actually be a contract, so the other 2 reasons are enough, but this 3rd reason seems out of place, given the situation and even what I learned in my contact law class.
The Pepsi points were irrelevant here. If he had spent a ton of money to make equivalent Pepsi points then maybe there would be a case here.