Lawyers: legal opinion

[En Passant]

Looks good. I don't think there is necessarily a right or wrong answer. Professor probably just wants you to back your opinion with a good argument.

My opinion: Firstly, I think a contract is definitely in place. Harris is offering a 300 game, and Chevrolet is offering a car. The issue is whether the offer was made the day that Harris bowled his perfect game.

Based on the ad (Chevrolet Cavalier to anyone who bowled a perfect 300 game on the televised program that day), I think that it is perfectly reasonable for a person to assume "that day" means any day "Bowling For Dollars" was being taped. I also think it is unreasonable to think that it should be the television viewers responsibility to keep up to date on the commercials ads on the program each week to see if an offer existed for each week. Therefore, I think Harris should get the car.

The problem is "that day" is too vague. It's really hard to give a concrete answer without knowing more details of the situation described: how many times was the ad ran during the show; was it ran during the show, or on a commercial (I assumed commercial); what was the exact wording of the commercial; how many other people assumed the offer was good on the show where Harris bowled a 300

[JackInDaCrak]

In re: the last two answers;

You can't say "a contract existed" and then say "the issue is whether or not an offer was still valid"

If the offer is valid and accepted, then there's a contract. If the offer is invalid, has expired/lapsed, etc., then a contract CANNOT exist.

From the facts given, it appears that the television spots advertised a Cavalier for the television show "that day" meaning the day that the television show was aired. Those offers by definition lapse at 11:59 PM "that day."

look:

"advertised in a 30 second spot commercial on a weekend television program called “Bowling for Dollars”, that it was giving away a new Chevrolet Cavalier to anyone who bowled a perfect 300 game on the televised program that day
IMO, there's no way to interpret that except that the television commercials only applied to the competition aired on the same day that the commercials were aired.

The printed material as examined in the real opinion is irrelevant to your analysis as it is excluded from your fact pattern.

Also, get rid of all the "I feel"'s and take a stand. Law isn't about feeling.

[FlyWf]

When Chevrolet advertised a free car to anyone who bowled a 300 that day they were offering a unilateral contract to all bowlers on that day. Harris accepted their offer by performance of the required 300 game. If Chevrolet mistakenly aired the ad on a day they did not intend to run the offer their offer is still valid since mistake by only one party does not void a contract.

That's all assuming the ad ran on the day of his game and that the language was specifically "Today" or "This Bowling for Dollars tourney" or something like that.

If it was "Today, November 17th" or something Chevrolet will argue(and imo win) that their offer revoked itself at 11:59 on the 17th. If it's "Today!!!! Anyone who blah blah blah Offer not available to Chevrolet Excitement employees or professional bowlers. Offer expires November 17th. Void in California." you've got yourself a tricky situation.

Assuming you've accurately given us the fact pattern your teacher has done a [censored] job. The correct answer is essentially give the case to the jury since it's a question of fact, not law. The fact pattern implies that the ad ran during Harris' tourney but then Chevrolet claims that they hadn't ran the ad for a month, this case needs more facts.