RHITA B. BEHRMAN INTERIORS, INC., AND RHITA B. BEHRMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BRAMAN CADILLAC, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An advertisement offering a free automobile with the purchase of a vehicle does not constitute an offer capable of acceptance that creates a binding contract.
[1] An advertisement offering a free item with the purchase of goods is not an offer capable of acceptance but rather an invitation to negotiate, and does not create a bindin…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBraman Cadillac placed a newspaper advertisement stating "Buy any new 1979 Cadillac or 1979 Cadillac Demo... Get a Brand New 1980 TOYOTA TERCEL FREE!"…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
[*283] PER CURIAM.
This appeal questions the correctness of a judgment on the pleadings rendered in favor of the appellee in an action for an alleged breach of contract to give a free 1980 Toyota with each purchase of a new 1979 Cadillac or a demonstrator pursuant to an advertisement placed in a newspaper by appellee which read as follows:
SATURDAY ONLY
CHRISTMAS SPECIAL
Buy any new 1979 Cadillac
or 1979 Cadillac Demo...
Get a Brand New 1980
TOYOTA
TERCEL
FREE!
A careful examination of the pleadings conclusively establishes that there is no genuine triable issue as to any material facts, and that appellee is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings as a matter of law. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Williams v. Howard, 329 So. 2d 277 (Fla.1976); American Housing Systems Corp. v. Country Club of Miami Corp., 342 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Barentine v. Clements, 328 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Bradham v. Hayes Enterprises, Inc., 306 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
Affirmed.
FERGUSON, Judge
(specially concurring).
While agreeing with the majority that plaintiff has no cause of action on a contract theory, I believe appellee’s advertisement, for failure to set forth the conditions in connection with the “free” automobile, is misleading and therefore violates state law. § 817.415, Fla.Stat. (1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- J. H. "Jim" Williams v. Howard, 329 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1976)
- Wilda H. Bradham v. Hayes Enters., Inc., 306 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Barentine v. Clements, 328 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Am. Hous. Sys. Corp. v. Country Club OF Miami Corp., 342 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)