So maybe if the guy had actually first obtained all the point, then demanded the jet, the suit might have come out differently?
> cited for is puffery
I'm no expert on puffery, but if the definition on wikipedia is correct, it doesn't seem like its puffery because it doesn't express "subjective views" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery . Offering a jet for points is a pretty objective statement.
> the purported subject matter of the agreement would have required a written agreement signed by the parties
Perhaps that's what would be needed for this to be fraud, but a contract certainly wouldn't be necessary to accuse them of bait-and-switch.
No, a valid contract was a requirement of the breach of contract claim, not the fraud claim.
> but a contract certainly wouldn't be necessary to accuse them of bait-and-switch.
Bait-and-switch isn't a legal cause of action. The usual cause of action for things described as bait and switch is either breach of contract (if there was an agreement) or fraud (if the bait-and-switcher got something of value from the other party out of it). Both were raised in this case, and both failed.
That seems pretty dumb to me. Then you're telling me it not actually illegal? There's no way to enforce advertisers not from doing a bait and switch? Count me skeptical.
There is a regulatory category called “Bait advertising” created under FTC’s legal authority related to deceptive advertising, and various legal causes of action (mainly fraud and breach of contract, but there are others) that each cover some part of what might be described as “bait and switch” in casual conversation. “Bait and switch” is something that different people will have different boundaries around and has no hard and fast definition.
This is simply wrong.
It was rejected because the particular ad did not (for a variety of reasons cited in the ruling) make an offer that was open to be accepted by the action by which he purported to accept the purported offer, so there was no contract [0], nor was it legally fraud, since Pepsi never cashed the check.
Ads, more generally, may or may not create offers open to acceptance by action.
> False advertising is explicitly against the law
False advertising is different than advertising creating a forward obligations; an advertisement is false or not when presented. OTOH, the puffery reasoning applied in the fraud claim in the Harrier case would also apply to a false advertising claim.
[0] while the thing its cited for is puffery, its worth noting that, even if puffery was off the table, the purported subject matter of the agreement would have required a written agreement signed by the parties under the Statute of Frauds to form a valid contract, and obviously no such written agreement existed.