Leonard V. Pepsi Co. INC 88F. supp. 2d 116(S.D.N.Y. 1997) Pepsi executed a promotional campaign in which the customer were invented to achieve Pepsi point by purchasing Pepsi drink product and exchange these points for Pepsi stuff. Plaintiff receive the catalogue that used in compensation of Pepsi point. The television ad featured stuff that available through the promotion of harrier jet. Leonard saw the commercial and commercial customers have to achieve Pepsi points to win difference stuff and in commercial its showed that if a customer achieve 7,000,000 points then he will win AV-8 Harrier jet. The main origin of this case was conflict between plaintiff and defence based on harrier jet. The plaintiff named Leonard received a catalogue for …show more content…
2d 198 (Ky. 1964) This case based on leasing property. Walker (defender) leased property to Keith (plaintiff). Both leaser and lessee entered in the contract of ten years. Leaser leased a small lot to appelee for ten years at rent of 100 dollars per months. The contract followed a many terms and conditions and a renewal option are also a part of the contract. The lessee gave a proper notice/for renew. All terms and conditions remains same but lesser increased the rent of property. Both parties were unable to agree upon the rent. Lessee sued in court against lessor in against increasing in the rent. The rent increased from hundred dollar to one twenty five dollar.so the lessee force the lessor that he would remained the old rent but according to court the option is enforceable. Because the deal for setting the rent is undefined and doubtful. In the present case court applied the traditional approach. According to traditional approach courts are not ready to complete the incomplete agreement made by the parties. According to the court both parties establish a clear method for determining of rent because court fallows traditional approach and court determined that the condition in the lessee renewal option does not fairly and clearly not establish a method for determining the amount of rent. Therefore the condition is too indefinite to