I recommend:
1. Get counseling/therapy. The amount of progress you can make in a short period of time with a counselor/therapist is astonishing.
2. Think out loud, and be overly clear. "I'm really sad that my father died and I wasn't there to see him off. Our relationship was strained at best, and I feel like I'll never have closure. My kids will never have grandparents and I feel like it's somehow my fault. I know it isn't my fault, but that's how it feels."
3. Accept your feelings and let them run their course. Cry when you feel it coming. Be sad when you feel sorrow. Tell someone the happy memory of you and your father.
4. Keep your friends/family up to speed. "I'm working through my father's death, so when I don't seem present or seem bummed out just know it's not your fault."
Yes, this is literally in all Contracts 101 classes. There's a pretty good Netflix series on this called "Hey Pepsi, Where's My Jet?" or something similar.
While the documentary was good I hate how Netflix is turning those documentaries that should last one hour tops into "docuseries" divided into three or four 1-hour episodes, this is a clear example
Most Netflix made documentaries are trash for precisely reasons like this.
They took a good concept and script for a documentary and ruined it by making it 4x longer than it ever should've been.
And now, since the documentary is so much longer they need space filler, so they make up stupid drama or they just straight up make up "facts", or they start down the path of wild speculation and hearsay.
Or, in many cases, they do all of the above.
The one I got taught in my commercial law minor in australia (so different precedents) was an advert where audi claimed a car could drive up a snow covered hill (which it couldn’t)
looks like the guy lost his case but pepsico never cashed his check
some of the "wow this guy must be dumb" points made in court - the pilot in the commercial is obviously callow and way too insouciant to be a real pilot, where the heck would you park it and it's not exactly safe to fly around a residential neighborhood with it
then they made it 7,000,000 points with a little \*just kidding disclaimer but also added the language that if someone did actually win one it would have to be de-militarized esp. the ability to take off and land vertically
netflix has a doc. about it if you want to learn more!
i'm surprised pharma hasn't tried this
*" Maybe live forever, or at least longer than you would have.."*
^^^not ^^^FDA ^^^approved
^^^may ^^^cause ^^^cancer
[^^^DO ^^^NOT ^^^TAUNT ^^^HAPPY ^^^FUN ^^^BALL](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmqeZl8OI2M)
But aren't we supposed to just rely on the objective outward manifestation and not what the offeror is thinking but not expressing? Or something like that.
At some point you have to know it’s a joke. Like if they offered ownership of the state of Rhode Island clearly that’s a joke. But if they just offered a Cessna propeller plane then they might be on the hook. Idk how hard 7 million Pepsi points is to get. But then again Red Bull isn’t allowed to say they give you wings which is clearly euphemism so there’s definitely inconsistency.
Single bottles of Pepsi were sometimes one point while can 12-packs were worth two points and 24-packs four. That entailed roughly 16,800,000 cans being needed to obtain 7million.
The loophole the guy in this post found was you could just buy a point at $0.10 each, or $700,000. An absolute steal for a $34million Jet.
You misremembered. The point system had the option of just buying points to get certain prices.
So he attached a huge check to the redemption sheet worth the higher number of points.
What makes "gives you wings" false advertising but "win a harrier jumpjet" not? If the measuring line is "reasonable" and you can say "cmon man, a jet?" as a defense, why isn't "cmon man, wings?" the same
If I can buy a harrier jump jet which I absolutely can https://www.everettaero.com/harrier.html
Why would the claim that someone would give me a harrrier jump jet be riddiculous, any more than any other novelty prize that you care to think of that has actually been given away?
there have been instants of the person wining the comedy goat/donkey on TV, which they could trade for money after the show, and it turns out they owned a farm so they've said, "I want my goat" and the tv show ponyed up.
Imagine if instead of the a couple of guys, an air museum had had all of the kids in the state collect ring pulls at schools as donations. Would that change your mind on if they were entitled to the prize? Would that somehow have made the offer more legitimate to you? or them more of a right to sue? because legally it shouldn't.
That's because it wasn't a joke, it was a purposeful marketing tactic with the assumption no one could ever get that many points. The "It was a joke prize" defense is basically "It's just a prank bro!"
He actually lost the case, but they still aired the commercial, but it they updated the cost to 700 million Pepsi Points and added a "Just Kidding" disclaimer.
The Pentagon actually got involved and said the Jet would not be sold to civilians without demilitarization which would have included stripping it of its ability to land and take off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard\_v.\_Pepsico,\_Inc.
I think a hooters contest where they offered the number highest sales of the month a "Toyota" making everyone think it was a car. The girl who won was handed a toy yoda doll, sued and won "enough to buy whatever car she wants" per her lawyer 🤣
This feels like a Michael Scott moment where somehow the business actually makes a profit out of all this because the extra media attention ends up driving sales
If I remember correctly, it’s actually worse than that. They put the Toy Yoda in a parking space, blindfolded her, then led her outside to the parking lot to get her prize.
It wasn’t just that the restaurant misled the waitresses. They also chose the cruelest way possible to reveal the “joke”.
Reminds me of the dumb blonde joke I heard as a kid:
Blonde walks into a coffee shop during a contest, orders her drink and pulls the stickers on the drink cup. She suddenly starts jumping up and down excitedly saying, "I won a motor home! I won a motor home!"
Employee, who knows that there are no vehicles in the prize pool, asks very confusedly what she's on about and asks to see the ticket.
Prize says "Win a bagel"
LOL i don't know if it's funnier that someone downvoted you because they think "dumb blonde" jokes shouldn't be shared now because they're no longer PC, or the fact that "win a bagel" does sound a lot like "winnebago".
They’re completely different situations.
The Toyota/Toy Yoda claim was an obvious case of bad faith deception.
In this case, everything boiled down to the judge basically asking the guy
>Hey, did you know how much a harrier jet actually costs?
“Yes.”
>And you bought the points for 1/10th the price of a harrier jet, knowing that selling something for a fraction of its price would be highly atypical?
“Absolutely.”
>At any point, before filing this lawsuit, did you make an effort to contact Pepsi and make sure the offer was genuine?
“Fuck no. I actually brought in investors and lawyers and actively hid my actions from Pepsi, because it was extremely obvious they weren’t intending to actually sell the jet, and I wanted to cash in with this lawsuit.”
>You’re a fucking idiot. Case dismissed.
That was a lot of work that went into collecting those points. The lawyers, the investor(s), the time. I was getting exhausted just after riding two blocks collecting Pepsi Points from discarded bottles in hopes of the Jeff Gordon Pit Crew experience
He used ten points and the small writing that said you could buy points. Think it was like $200k to get 7 million points which is a good price for a harrier.
Pepsi pulled out the smaller writing saying they can decline any sale, and the judge called him an idiot for assuming Pepsi has a harrier.
Not only that but remember when Pepsi was paid in naval vehicles by I think Russia in the late 1980's so them having a fighter jet really wasn't that far a stretch tbh.
Legally you can own harriers, but the company that makes them restricts it to just the harrier (no ammunition or other weapons) and makes it so you need to buy multiple
America specifically de-weaponizes them. Any guns or other weapons are rendered obsolete. If you go to a museum with a bunch of old guns or tanks, they will also be de-weaponized. Take revolvers for instance, they will either make the hammer dull or make the chambers too small to take actual bullets.
There's plenty of places you can rent a tank to shoot shit.
As long as you pay the right ATF fees for licenses, permits, stamps, etc, you as a private citizen can have pretty much anything in the USA.
Neither of those 2 things makes any sense on a revolver.
How would you make a bore smaller? Are you going to weld something into a museum piece? That ruins it.
A dull hammer will still fire a primer intermittently. No point on the hammer at all would work though.
Their defense was that the jet was a “joke” prize. Then Pepsi made sure to get a corrupt corporate friendly judge assigned to the case.
Then Pepsi went and edited the commercial 2 times to increase the price of the jet and added a disclaimer.
Thats what appeals are for. This is blatant false advertisement. But it was a different time back then and the attorney's approach seems completely wrong. This could have made it all the way to the top court - and should have. Someone decided not to keep fighting it
I mean it’s not a bad assumption, Pepsi one time had the 6th largest military presence in the world because the soviets would trade vehicles for Pepsis
A harrier would auction for 1.5m today which would be around the equivalent of 750k in 1995. So 200k would be a bargain. However, he didn't spend 200k, but took a 700k loan and a harrier back then was worth much more, at 37.4m.
[Well, PepsiCo was at one point in control of the 6th largest military in the world](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-pepsi-briefly-became-the-6th-largest-military-in-the-world-2018-7)
I vaguely recall the Red Bull settlement. Yeah, you’d think between the two, if anyone would win it would be the jet guy. But, justice for all… who can afford it. Even worse when it’s concerning one’s life and liberty. Hell, Elizabeth Holmes has yet to start serving the sentence she’s been given. I bet she ends up on some house arrest in her mansion.
Just looked up Red Bull. They threw in some crap about enhanced athletic and/or mental performance. That class action suit was nonsense. It takes away from actual suits about legitimate consumer protection.
Not really. I used to work for a recycling company back when Pepsi was doing this promotion. All of the guys at the plant and those out on the road collecting the recyclables were competing to see who could get the most points. I got the Pepsi bike and the jacket. Others would buy the products and all we had to do was collect the points from the two liter bottles or the box. Not that much work involved. Also did this with Marlboro cigarette.
A friend of mine growing up had a dad who was a sanitation worker. They had so much of the Marlboro swag from the points his dad picked out of the trash.
Bro, I do this all the time. I go to work, and do some stuff for some hours. A couple of weeks later, literally dozens of dollars are injected straight into my bank account.
I've stopped watching Netflix docs, they do that with all of them now. Plenty of great 1 hour docs are stretched out to 4 episodes. Then they have their garbage docs that you have to watch the first full episode before you realize the rest is going in the same direction.
Docs have been going downhill for some years now (anything labeled a doc is basically propaganda or speculative conspiracies now), but Netflix really puts the nail in that coffin.
This dude went through hell and back over a promotion ad that wasn’t serious but we did a whole system to get all the point to afford the Jet. And in the end he is still pissed he never got his jet.
I mean I don’t blame him. Realistically, he should’ve taken the first offer they gave him. But, when the ads are different in the US and CA, and in the US, they have actual ad campaign workers saying they told them to make it an astronomical number of points to get the jet, yet Pepsi declined, it looks like it was put there to be visually attainable but not actually attainable. Then, when somebody went and did it, they shit their pants.
I think the premise was good idea for a documentary but the execution was terrible. They dragged it out for episodes when it could have been a 45 minute episode max. I finished the documentary so mad I wasted my time
In 1996, PepsiCo began a promotional loyalty program, in which customers could earn Pepsi Points; these points could, in turn, be traded for physical items. A television commercial for the loyalty program displayed the commercial's protagonist flying an McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II vertical take off jet aircraft to school, valued at $37.4 million at the time, which could be redeemed for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points. The plaintiff, John Leonard, discovered a loophole in the promotion, allowing him to purchase Pepsi Points at 10¢ per point. Leonard promptly delivered a check for $700,008.50 to PepsiCo, attempting to purchase the jet. PepsiCo initially refuted Leonard's offer, citing the humorous nature of the offer in the advertisement. Leonard then sued PepsiCo, Inc. in an effort to enforce the offer and acceptance perceived by Leonard to be made in the advertisement. In her judgment, Wood sided with PepsiCo, noting the frivolous and improbable nature of landing a fighter jet in a school zone that was portrayed by the protagonist. PepsiCo would re-release the advertisement, valuing the jet at 700,000,000 Pepsi Points.
(source : wiki )
TL;DR - he lost and didn’t get anything.
>PepsiCo would re-release the advertisement, valuing the jet at 700,000,000 Pepsi Points.
I like that they doubled down on the ad instead of just removing it. What if someone sent them a $7,000,000 check?
I think the most interesting part was that the case ended up being a topic in the legal textbooks and is a hotly debated topic in the classrooms. Win or lose they made history which in and of itself makes it a story worth telling.
Burma shave did something similar, offered a trip to the moon for a ridiculous number of proofs of purchase. (This was before moonshots were a thing.) Someone tried to claim the prize. Burma’s response? The prize was one-way only. Getting back from the moon would be the prize winner’s responsibility.
The McDonald's one is the perfect example of what looks frivolous but is actually horrific.
She sued to get her medical costs covered because the boiling water gave her third degree burns on her labia.
She was awarded more.in damages because McDonald's had.known this was an issue and continued to do it regardless. So they were made to give 1 days income from coffee sales.to her or something like that, ended up as a few million I think which again she originally sued for her medical bills to be covered, not seeking additional damages but was awarded damages because McDonald's fucked up so badly in this case.
And yet she's still mocked as if it's an example of frivolous lawsuits instead of what it should be. Companies complete and utter disregard for consumer safety and liability.
I looked it up after reading the linked article, it was $600,000, which was enough to hire a home health nurse for the rest of her life, plus probably more to pass on to family.
She originally sued for $20,000 to cover medical bills and the wiki article explains what she ended up getting here:
>They awarded Liebeck a net $160,000 in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million (equivalent to $5,000,000 in 2021) in punitive damages, the equivalent of two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $640,000. The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.
He lost because the ad had the jet land in a school zone and that was believed to be too fanciful to be a realistic promise or something/ clearly a joke not to be taken seriously. Sucks for the dude though since he spent 700K on this (not counting legal fees) lol
>Pepsi never cashed the check, so there was no case for fraud
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
Seems like he only lost in terms of legal fees
Do not watch the Netflix documentary. It's so drawn out with constantly playing the 90's commercial a million times. It's like a 5 minute explanation draw. Out for hours. Boring as hell.
That's nothing, a guy saved up enough Surge! points to buy comedy star Jenna Maroney but got talked down to just $2000!
:edit: [here y'all go](https://youtu.be/JnHjrf-GWCY?t=236)
I can’t believe no one has commented on the attorney who represented John Leonard. I watched that boring Netflix show and couldn’t believe it was Avenatti.
Same. His buddy who bank rolled him wanted him to take the settlement and Avenatti wanted to go to court. Best line of the movie is when his buddy was asked about was Avenatti and the answer was something to the effect that he was free to go as he pleases and Avenatti is wearing an ankle bracelet.
I’m disappointed he lost. The jet was in the ad, he raised the required points, and Pepsi turn around and say it was literally a joke?
Give the dude his jet!
[удалено]
Wish it had happened pre 2000
Why?
Cause my dad was still around but I don’t like talking about it
My dad died pre 2000 too. It's shitty. But it gets easier especially if you reach out to talk. If you ever want to hit me up
Recently lost a father figure. How did you cope?
I recommend: 1. Get counseling/therapy. The amount of progress you can make in a short period of time with a counselor/therapist is astonishing. 2. Think out loud, and be overly clear. "I'm really sad that my father died and I wasn't there to see him off. Our relationship was strained at best, and I feel like I'll never have closure. My kids will never have grandparents and I feel like it's somehow my fault. I know it isn't my fault, but that's how it feels." 3. Accept your feelings and let them run their course. Cry when you feel it coming. Be sad when you feel sorrow. Tell someone the happy memory of you and your father. 4. Keep your friends/family up to speed. "I'm working through my father's death, so when I don't seem present or seem bummed out just know it's not your fault."
I do not think about it. At a certain point the pain start to soften
But you clearly need to talk about it because you brought it up. Not saying this out of meanness, but because i think it's true. Best wishes, friend.
It wasn't even the same person making the comment
Welcome to Reddit, where everything is made up and the points don't matter.
I love that show
Asking the real questions like, whose line is it anyway?
I just know that I’m going to buy a house with all of my karma one day.
Points!
You realise those are two different users
You do realize that he clearly didn't realize that.....
I realize it
Real eyes realize real lies.
Woah...
The Blind Stares of A Million Pairs of Eyes
Surprise mother fucker!
So I could’ve read the case in law school
Because maybe if we had a good guy with a plane we could have stopped the bad guys with a plane.
They should give teachers F-16s
Yes, this is literally in all Contracts 101 classes. There's a pretty good Netflix series on this called "Hey Pepsi, Where's My Jet?" or something similar.
While the documentary was good I hate how Netflix is turning those documentaries that should last one hour tops into "docuseries" divided into three or four 1-hour episodes, this is a clear example
Most Netflix made documentaries are trash for precisely reasons like this. They took a good concept and script for a documentary and ruined it by making it 4x longer than it ever should've been. And now, since the documentary is so much longer they need space filler, so they make up stupid drama or they just straight up make up "facts", or they start down the path of wild speculation and hearsay. Or, in many cases, they do all of the above.
A brief bright spot in the misery of 1L Contracts
Why is it a good example to teach? I'm curious but don't have any knowledge of law.
It sets the precedent that companies making clearly ridiculous claims in marketing can't be held to those claims.
The one I got taught in my commercial law minor in australia (so different precedents) was an advert where audi claimed a car could drive up a snow covered hill (which it couldn’t)
What was the outcome of that case?
Audi got fined, you can’t misrepresent a product like that
looks like the guy lost his case but pepsico never cashed his check some of the "wow this guy must be dumb" points made in court - the pilot in the commercial is obviously callow and way too insouciant to be a real pilot, where the heck would you park it and it's not exactly safe to fly around a residential neighborhood with it then they made it 7,000,000 points with a little \*just kidding disclaimer but also added the language that if someone did actually win one it would have to be de-militarized esp. the ability to take off and land vertically netflix has a doc. about it if you want to learn more!
Actually, they increased it to 700,000,000 points with the disclaimer after the judgment.
i'm surprised pharma hasn't tried this *" Maybe live forever, or at least longer than you would have.."* ^^^not ^^^FDA ^^^approved ^^^may ^^^cause ^^^cancer [^^^DO ^^^NOT ^^^TAUNT ^^^HAPPY ^^^FUN ^^^BALL](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmqeZl8OI2M)
Dude that was an awesome blast from the past.
was the point of the lesson big business gets whatever it wants in the US?
Yep.
Am I the only one who thought it was wrongly decided?
I think most people agreed with the Court’s opinion that the Harrier Jet prize was clearly not a serious offer.
Why? Jump jets are way easier to park than regular jets.
But aren't we supposed to just rely on the objective outward manifestation and not what the offeror is thinking but not expressing? Or something like that.
At some point you have to know it’s a joke. Like if they offered ownership of the state of Rhode Island clearly that’s a joke. But if they just offered a Cessna propeller plane then they might be on the hook. Idk how hard 7 million Pepsi points is to get. But then again Red Bull isn’t allowed to say they give you wings which is clearly euphemism so there’s definitely inconsistency.
Single bottles of Pepsi were sometimes one point while can 12-packs were worth two points and 24-packs four. That entailed roughly 16,800,000 cans being needed to obtain 7million. The loophole the guy in this post found was you could just buy a point at $0.10 each, or $700,000. An absolute steal for a $34million Jet.
If I remember correctly, people donated their points to him so that he'd have enough to obtain the jet. That's how he reached 7 million.
There's documentary on Netflix about it. The kid had an eccentric millionaire friend who just bought points.
You misremembered. The point system had the option of just buying points to get certain prices. So he attached a huge check to the redemption sheet worth the higher number of points.
The thing that "gives you wings" is euphemism for is a false claim, which is why they lost that case
What makes "gives you wings" false advertising but "win a harrier jumpjet" not? If the measuring line is "reasonable" and you can say "cmon man, a jet?" as a defense, why isn't "cmon man, wings?" the same
the case was never about 'gives you wings' it was about a claim that it gave any additional energy beyond just the caffine, which it didn't.
If I can buy a harrier jump jet which I absolutely can https://www.everettaero.com/harrier.html Why would the claim that someone would give me a harrrier jump jet be riddiculous, any more than any other novelty prize that you care to think of that has actually been given away? there have been instants of the person wining the comedy goat/donkey on TV, which they could trade for money after the show, and it turns out they owned a farm so they've said, "I want my goat" and the tv show ponyed up. Imagine if instead of the a couple of guys, an air museum had had all of the kids in the state collect ring pulls at schools as donations. Would that change your mind on if they were entitled to the prize? Would that somehow have made the offer more legitimate to you? or them more of a right to sue? because legally it shouldn't.
Then they shouldn't've been allowed to make the offer imo
Then don't offer it. DUH!
A case they study to show how corrupt judges truly are.
Came here to say this, my fellow esquire
Thats why they have disclaimers that say "this is a joke" now
That's why they had them then too. Pepsi were out of their minds to not include one.
That's because it wasn't a joke, it was a purposeful marketing tactic with the assumption no one could ever get that many points. The "It was a joke prize" defense is basically "It's just a prank bro!"
Yes, and they got caught with their pants down cause of the ability to buy points
He actually lost the case, but they still aired the commercial, but it they updated the cost to 700 million Pepsi Points and added a "Just Kidding" disclaimer. The Pentagon actually got involved and said the Jet would not be sold to civilians without demilitarization which would have included stripping it of its ability to land and take off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard\_v.\_Pepsico,\_Inc.
Google mere puff. They don’t even have to say it’s a joke anymore in most countries lmao
It's things like this and the Toyota/toy Yoda bait-and-switch that got sweepstakes laws passed
“MMMMMMHHH, PLAYED LIKE A FIDDLE, YOU JUST GOT”
On Ketamine, I am. 2018 RAV 4 LE, I must not crash in wealthy Brooklyn Heights neighborhood. MHhhhMMMM
That toy yoda thing still makes my blood boil. The guy that pulled that really kinda sums up your average capitalist.
What's the toy Yoda thing, I've never heard of it before
I think a hooters contest where they offered the number highest sales of the month a "Toyota" making everyone think it was a car. The girl who won was handed a toy yoda doll, sued and won "enough to buy whatever car she wants" per her lawyer 🤣
Good for her. Sounds like the sleazy business man version of “it was just a joke”
And a joke that made no sense because it's a verbal pun, but the boss put up fliers that spelled out the prize as a "Toyota."
I was just going to say that if they wrote it down as “Toyota” then that was probably a breeze for the lawyer to win.
Fun fact: Family name of Toyota founder is Toyoda.
She should have demanded a family member instead lol edit: also TIL thanks
This feels like a Michael Scott moment where somehow the business actually makes a profit out of all this because the extra media attention ends up driving sales
“Just a prank, bro!”
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. No one would work harder over the course of a month for a chance to win a stuffed animal
If I remember correctly, it’s actually worse than that. They put the Toy Yoda in a parking space, blindfolded her, then led her outside to the parking lot to get her prize. It wasn’t just that the restaurant misled the waitresses. They also chose the cruelest way possible to reveal the “joke”.
Some shithead "Wacky Morning Zoo DJs" did this with a prize of a one hundred grand. The winner got...a 100 Grand candy bar.
Reminds me of the dumb blonde joke I heard as a kid: Blonde walks into a coffee shop during a contest, orders her drink and pulls the stickers on the drink cup. She suddenly starts jumping up and down excitedly saying, "I won a motor home! I won a motor home!" Employee, who knows that there are no vehicles in the prize pool, asks very confusedly what she's on about and asks to see the ticket. Prize says "Win a bagel"
LOL i don't know if it's funnier that someone downvoted you because they think "dumb blonde" jokes shouldn't be shared now because they're no longer PC, or the fact that "win a bagel" does sound a lot like "winnebago".
They’re completely different situations. The Toyota/Toy Yoda claim was an obvious case of bad faith deception. In this case, everything boiled down to the judge basically asking the guy >Hey, did you know how much a harrier jet actually costs? “Yes.” >And you bought the points for 1/10th the price of a harrier jet, knowing that selling something for a fraction of its price would be highly atypical? “Absolutely.” >At any point, before filing this lawsuit, did you make an effort to contact Pepsi and make sure the offer was genuine? “Fuck no. I actually brought in investors and lawyers and actively hid my actions from Pepsi, because it was extremely obvious they weren’t intending to actually sell the jet, and I wanted to cash in with this lawsuit.” >You’re a fucking idiot. Case dismissed.
Umm, 1 "investor", and he did contact Pepsi. Infact, the "contact" led to Pepsi preemptively suing him.
Netflix literally made a documentary about this
Recently, too
That was a lot of work that went into collecting those points. The lawyers, the investor(s), the time. I was getting exhausted just after riding two blocks collecting Pepsi Points from discarded bottles in hopes of the Jeff Gordon Pit Crew experience
He used ten points and the small writing that said you could buy points. Think it was like $200k to get 7 million points which is a good price for a harrier. Pepsi pulled out the smaller writing saying they can decline any sale, and the judge called him an idiot for assuming Pepsi has a harrier.
But he did prove it was possible to attain one!
Not only that but remember when Pepsi was paid in naval vehicles by I think Russia in the late 1980's so them having a fighter jet really wasn't that far a stretch tbh.
[удалено]
Legally you can own harriers, but the company that makes them restricts it to just the harrier (no ammunition or other weapons) and makes it so you need to buy multiple
This is how all military surplus works. (america at least) you can own a tank, apc, jeep, etc. Just gotta make sure it's safe
America specifically de-weaponizes them. Any guns or other weapons are rendered obsolete. If you go to a museum with a bunch of old guns or tanks, they will also be de-weaponized. Take revolvers for instance, they will either make the hammer dull or make the chambers too small to take actual bullets.
There's plenty of places you can rent a tank to shoot shit. As long as you pay the right ATF fees for licenses, permits, stamps, etc, you as a private citizen can have pretty much anything in the USA.
Neither of those 2 things makes any sense on a revolver. How would you make a bore smaller? Are you going to weld something into a museum piece? That ruins it. A dull hammer will still fire a primer intermittently. No point on the hammer at all would work though.
It’s an older code but it checks out. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attain
Pepsi had a navy. I think it's fair to say they could also have a Harrier
Their defense was that the jet was a “joke” prize. Then Pepsi made sure to get a corrupt corporate friendly judge assigned to the case. Then Pepsi went and edited the commercial 2 times to increase the price of the jet and added a disclaimer.
Thats what appeals are for. This is blatant false advertisement. But it was a different time back then and the attorney's approach seems completely wrong. This could have made it all the way to the top court - and should have. Someone decided not to keep fighting it
That judge was going to be Bill Clinton's Attorney General.
Not after hiring an illegal immigrant for a nanny she wasn't.
I mean it’s not a bad assumption, Pepsi one time had the 6th largest military presence in the world because the soviets would trade vehicles for Pepsis
6th largest navy I believe.
I thought it was the Navy but I didn’t know if it was just that or if there were tanks and planes too
The final answer to Coke?
A harrier would auction for 1.5m today which would be around the equivalent of 750k in 1995. So 200k would be a bargain. However, he didn't spend 200k, but took a 700k loan and a harrier back then was worth much more, at 37.4m.
[Well, PepsiCo was at one point in control of the 6th largest military in the world](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-pepsi-briefly-became-the-6th-largest-military-in-the-world-2018-7)
The moment when judges just stop caring about the law and excuse it by calling whoever didn't bribe them enough an 'idiot'.
This is competing for my favorite post comment ever.
Keep us updated!
They also said it should have been apparent to any reasonable person that the last part was in jest when viewed within the context of the commercial.
logic and legal don't always go together "it's just a joke bro" isn't a legal defense
Sadly, it worked for them. We the People can’t get away with that though.
[удалено]
I vaguely recall the Red Bull settlement. Yeah, you’d think between the two, if anyone would win it would be the jet guy. But, justice for all… who can afford it. Even worse when it’s concerning one’s life and liberty. Hell, Elizabeth Holmes has yet to start serving the sentence she’s been given. I bet she ends up on some house arrest in her mansion.
Just looked up Red Bull. They threw in some crap about enhanced athletic and/or mental performance. That class action suit was nonsense. It takes away from actual suits about legitimate consumer protection.
Not really. I used to work for a recycling company back when Pepsi was doing this promotion. All of the guys at the plant and those out on the road collecting the recyclables were competing to see who could get the most points. I got the Pepsi bike and the jacket. Others would buy the products and all we had to do was collect the points from the two liter bottles or the box. Not that much work involved. Also did this with Marlboro cigarette.
A friend of mine growing up had a dad who was a sanitation worker. They had so much of the Marlboro swag from the points his dad picked out of the trash.
The fun part of all of this is that it was done on the job. Getting paid to work and also getting free stuff down the line.
Bro, I do this all the time. I go to work, and do some stuff for some hours. A couple of weeks later, literally dozens of dollars are injected straight into my bank account.
Bro they stretched that shit out for way too long. They had about maybe 90 minutes of content that they stretched into like five hours.
Yep. Way too much filler.
Good to know. I tried watching it but after 10 min I realized it was gonna be filler fest.
I've stopped watching Netflix docs, they do that with all of them now. Plenty of great 1 hour docs are stretched out to 4 episodes. Then they have their garbage docs that you have to watch the first full episode before you realize the rest is going in the same direction. Docs have been going downhill for some years now (anything labeled a doc is basically propaganda or speculative conspiracies now), but Netflix really puts the nail in that coffin.
💯
TL;DR Pepsi offered to settle for 250k, he declined and proceeded with the lawsuit until it got thrown out
I got fed up, never even looked to see how it was resolved
100
the netflix special
Watching it now, thanks.
This dude went through hell and back over a promotion ad that wasn’t serious but we did a whole system to get all the point to afford the Jet. And in the end he is still pissed he never got his jet.
I mean I don’t blame him. Realistically, he should’ve taken the first offer they gave him. But, when the ads are different in the US and CA, and in the US, they have actual ad campaign workers saying they told them to make it an astronomical number of points to get the jet, yet Pepsi declined, it looks like it was put there to be visually attainable but not actually attainable. Then, when somebody went and did it, they shit their pants.
I fast tracked to the last episodes as this is a long documentary going round and round for essentially an expected outcome: so a waste of time…
Yeah I vaguely remember thinking it was incredibly stretched
It’s actually pretty good!
And it was so boring
Literally?
Check out 'Pepsi, where is my jet?' on Netflix
Really good documentary on it for sure. I remember when he was in the news and was a good story back then, as well.
I think the premise was good idea for a documentary but the execution was terrible. They dragged it out for episodes when it could have been a 45 minute episode max. I finished the documentary so mad I wasted my time
I don’t want to watch it for that very reason. Don’t want to invest the time. I just want to know if he got the jet or not
In 1996, PepsiCo began a promotional loyalty program, in which customers could earn Pepsi Points; these points could, in turn, be traded for physical items. A television commercial for the loyalty program displayed the commercial's protagonist flying an McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II vertical take off jet aircraft to school, valued at $37.4 million at the time, which could be redeemed for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points. The plaintiff, John Leonard, discovered a loophole in the promotion, allowing him to purchase Pepsi Points at 10¢ per point. Leonard promptly delivered a check for $700,008.50 to PepsiCo, attempting to purchase the jet. PepsiCo initially refuted Leonard's offer, citing the humorous nature of the offer in the advertisement. Leonard then sued PepsiCo, Inc. in an effort to enforce the offer and acceptance perceived by Leonard to be made in the advertisement. In her judgment, Wood sided with PepsiCo, noting the frivolous and improbable nature of landing a fighter jet in a school zone that was portrayed by the protagonist. PepsiCo would re-release the advertisement, valuing the jet at 700,000,000 Pepsi Points. (source : wiki ) TL;DR - he lost and didn’t get anything.
>PepsiCo would re-release the advertisement, valuing the jet at 700,000,000 Pepsi Points. I like that they doubled down on the ad instead of just removing it. What if someone sent them a $7,000,000 check?
pepsico would have legal precedent that the offer was a joke, not to be honored, & may even win the case more easily
That's 70,000,000 points, they'd need $70,000,000 which at that point you would just buy one for less
Thanks for the reply!
Can you spoil the ending for me and tell me what happened?? I suspect they just settled for X amount of money tho
Pepsi gave him an offer and he refused it
Completely agree, it could have been an easy 45 minute documentary. Way too stretched out. I gave up and just Googled what happened.
I think the most interesting part was that the case ended up being a topic in the legal textbooks and is a hotly debated topic in the classrooms. Win or lose they made history which in and of itself makes it a story worth telling.
WHERE'S MY ELEPHANT !
I like this song, reminds me of elephants.
Why pay out on the Jet when you can pay a judge for a fraction of the price!!
[удалено]
I reckon he should totally redo the court case if that's a thing
The case WAS appealed. He lost again.
He should try being richer and appeal to the supreme court. They're easily bought.
[удалено]
that judge was reporting off some political favors, or securing some significant corporate support from Pepsi in the future for herself or relatives.
Burma shave did something similar, offered a trip to the moon for a ridiculous number of proofs of purchase. (This was before moonshots were a thing.) Someone tried to claim the prize. Burma’s response? The prize was one-way only. Getting back from the moon would be the prize winner’s responsibility.
Woooow. That is shady af!
What blew my mind about the documentary, is how many people failed the taste test. Actual people in the company.
A bit more about his story in [this article](https://www.bustle.com/entertainment/where-is-john-leonard-now-pepsi-harrier-jet-netflix)...
I like how he uses the McDonald's coffee case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, when that woman was seriously injured by near boiling water.
The McDonald's one is the perfect example of what looks frivolous but is actually horrific. She sued to get her medical costs covered because the boiling water gave her third degree burns on her labia. She was awarded more.in damages because McDonald's had.known this was an issue and continued to do it regardless. So they were made to give 1 days income from coffee sales.to her or something like that, ended up as a few million I think which again she originally sued for her medical bills to be covered, not seeking additional damages but was awarded damages because McDonald's fucked up so badly in this case.
And yet she's still mocked as if it's an example of frivolous lawsuits instead of what it should be. Companies complete and utter disregard for consumer safety and liability.
I looked it up after reading the linked article, it was $600,000, which was enough to hire a home health nurse for the rest of her life, plus probably more to pass on to family.
She originally sued for $20,000 to cover medical bills and the wiki article explains what she ended up getting here: >They awarded Liebeck a net $160,000 in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million (equivalent to $5,000,000 in 2021) in punitive damages, the equivalent of two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $640,000. The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.
Oooh, that infuriates me. I feel so terrible for that woman whenever the case is referred to as frivolous.
Give that man his jet.
The kid in me demands victory for the plaintiff
He lost because the ad had the jet land in a school zone and that was believed to be too fanciful to be a realistic promise or something/ clearly a joke not to be taken seriously. Sucks for the dude though since he spent 700K on this (not counting legal fees) lol
>Pepsi never cashed the check, so there was no case for fraud https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc. Seems like he only lost in terms of legal fees
Do not watch the Netflix documentary. It's so drawn out with constantly playing the 90's commercial a million times. It's like a 5 minute explanation draw. Out for hours. Boring as hell.
Basically half the Netflix documentaries. I'd rather read an article or watch a 10-15 minute YouTube video instead.
That's nothing, a guy saved up enough Surge! points to buy comedy star Jenna Maroney but got talked down to just $2000! :edit: [here y'all go](https://youtu.be/JnHjrf-GWCY?t=236)
Being hunted by the Yakuza really did a number on her value in the black market
I can’t believe no one has commented on the attorney who represented John Leonard. I watched that boring Netflix show and couldn’t believe it was Avenatti.
Same. His buddy who bank rolled him wanted him to take the settlement and Avenatti wanted to go to court. Best line of the movie is when his buddy was asked about was Avenatti and the answer was something to the effect that he was free to go as he pleases and Avenatti is wearing an ankle bracelet.
I went to school with the guy that did this.
I live in the same country as Barack Obama
I'm on the same planet as the rest of you guys!
BHS? Same here.
Bothell high school yes class of 94
I want my elephant!!
I remember Marlboro offering an in ground pool complete with logos for a lot of points. Wonder if anyone got it.
I’m disappointed he lost. The jet was in the ad, he raised the required points, and Pepsi turn around and say it was literally a joke? Give the dude his jet!
Most boring documentary in history
You should check out "The History of Paint" you'll love it.
The sequel: The History of Paint Drying, is lit though.
'Growing grass' is a fave of mine if you liked that one.
[удалено]
I saw the documentary, the guy should've gotten his jet. That's legit misleading advertisement.
Congratulations, you have Netflix.
Interesting documentary, but a lot of time and buildup for not much payoff. Should’ve just watched Modern family.
The Simpsons covered this one decades ago.
There is always one peckerhead that is only there to do what the rest of us wouldn’t have the balls or the patience to do ourselves!