Pepsi Harrier Jet Commercial 2

The second commercial by Pepsi after someone actually got the 7,000,000 points needed for the Jet. They just changed the modest price of 7 millions to 700... GG Pepsi

• Category

  Entertainment

[chatitosanchez]

I find it interesting that the kid has a jet, yet he is STILL late for school.

[abcdsean]

Did Pepsi give the guy his money back?

Or has he a now have a garage full of shitty sunglasses and t-shirts?

I think Pepsi should have stipulated that you actually have to drink the pepsi. The guy probably would have died in a sugar induced coma.

[Daniel Woffard]

How dare they!

[Shan He]

0:35...isnt that a coke?

[mendaliv]

Actually it was that he submitted 15 points, and $700,010 by check. The $10 was shipping... lol.

[jmrwacko]

He actually just bought one pepsi and bought the other 699,999,999 points with a 700,000 dollar check.

[artistwithouttalent]

Yeah, I wonder how this affected his life.

I'm sorry, I just can't stop thinking about the request for child jurors; since he was 21, wouldn't the offer not apply to him, assuming everything else he put forth was accurate (which, obviously, it wasn't)? It's pedantics about an obvious case by now, but the idea just struck me as funny.

[Nick Steele]

I totally agree as a whole it is funny though, it probably redefined Lenard's social life "oh look it's the guy who sued Pepsi for a fighter jet", "honey can you be home by 5? I know it might be hard without that harrier, but try?" The funniest part is a bunch of idiots thought he would win, so they had a meeting, made a business plan, and pooled 700k and made him the leader, THAT is funny, I think that is what made the judge stay up and night and write such a good and landmark opinion :)

[Nick Steele]

I agree with what you are saying but I'm glad he did it; because he sued, he lost money (maybe his punishment for being greedy), and his loss helped define what a real offer is in an advertisement, and until this case there was only a 100 year old definition, before TV and everything, involving products that no longer exist. Now, some creative person can come up with Megatron offering you his underpants if you buy coke, and if someone sues for them, they can use this case in their defense.

[artistwithouttalent]

And it would be an unnecessary risk because they might have received a decent case in the future (i.e. someone lost their points because of a mistake on Pepsi's part, but the company won't fix the mistake, so they sue.) There may not have presided on cases like this before, but again, they never had a need to because the answer is obvious.

[artistwithouttalent]

I call it a farce of a case on the grounds that Leonard was trying to get a $23 million jet from Pepsi for $700,000, but more than that, a $23 million jet that legally he could not own in a usable state. The ruling may have been landmark, but it was obvious even before it went to trial. Here's how much bolstering Leonard thought his case needed: he tried to argue that they needed a jury from "The Pepsi Generation," (i.e. kids), to whom the ad would constitute an offer to preside.

[Nick Steele]

Also, if one argued that it proved an unnecessary risk, they might be forgetting or ignorant of the fact that there were no modern landmark cases on what unreasonable advertisements were until this case. This case was not a farce at all; nothing had been ruled in the US on the subject for approximately 100 years and this case, although it cost Leonard and Pepsi Co. some money, made it very clear what was and was not allowed legally in silly advertisements. I feel this case made things better.