Talk:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2016 2018 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Just My Opinion

I think the court screwed up. There was no disclaimer after the ad on TV, and there was no disclaimer in the fine print. In fact, the rules ALLOWED Leonard to do what he did. Failure to plan correctly on Pepsi's part should have resulted in them ponying up. If Leonard owed Pepsi $700,000 on something he did as a joke, I'm pretty damned sure that Pepsi would have sued him for it, and the corporatists in America would have ensured Pepsi won. Buncha jagoffs.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. Since PepsiCo put this AD on TV, it means they access approve this rule. If not, it is a False Advertising.--Cylbf2 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

disagree. as the court stated, no Reasonable Person would interpret the commercial as an actual offer. it was clearly puffery. Dcovington (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

But Leonard made a valid point: The ad didn't target "reasonable people", but young, impressionable people who were more willing to believe such a fantastic dream prize could be true—even if only one of them, as it turned out, found the resources to meet the stipulated requirement.

The Netflix documentary also shows how Pepsi took preemptive action by suing Leonard—well before he'd considered any legal action of his own—in a New York court, where the company was based (and therefore would be most likely to receive support). They also arranged to have it heard by a judge well known for her corporate leanings, and successfully blocked attempts to depose (interview) the people who created the ads, or for the case to go before a jury of ordinary people. Polls showed that people overwhelmingly felt Leonard had met the terms of the offer and Pepsi should come through—so Pepsi was taking no chances that public opinion would affect the case.

And I don't think this is mentioned in the article—but at one point, Pepsi offered Leonard $1 million to drop the case (which he refused, because he wanted the jet, to start an air show business). Companies don't go around offering million-dollar settlements to people when they think they've done nothing wrong. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

TheKurgan, first of all. Wikipedia, including the talk page of any article, is not a discussion forum. Material commentary about ways to improve the article itself is welcome, but debate over the topic is not. Secondly, before you go and edit the article, I’d recommend you familiarize yourself with the abundant contract law literature relevant to this case, whether my reading the law as established in prior rulings and statute, legal textbooks, or other secondary sources. Article edits should reflect the facts of the topic, not individual’s opinions. Jgalt87 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Jgalt87, inappropriate to try and stifle discussion of edits and citations. Discussion should precede edits, as is the case here. 01:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Wkpdsrnm2024 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m not trying to stifle any thoughts he has on improving the article. Rather, im saying his opinion of the decision is immaterial. He said “ I think the court screwed up.” That’s fine, and he’s welcome to his opinion, but the talk page is for discussion of ways to improve the article, not a forum for individual’s to air their thoughts on a court decision.

A more constructive comment would be to suggest a section dedicated to commentary on the decision, which would, citing reliable sources, outline legal scholars’ or op ed writers’ (or whatever) thoughts on the ruling. Jgalt87 (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Needs a better source in the Aftermath section

The source for the claim that the US government advised that the plane would have to be demilitarized is a Snopes article, which itself is not a sufficient source in this instance. Dcovington (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As the Netflix documentary shows, Leonard actually contacted the Pentagon early on to find out if private ownership of a Harrier jet would be legal. He was told that as long as the armaments were removed, there was no reason it could not be privately owned. (Collectors own and fly many types of non-weaponized military aircraft.) Some time later, the same Pentagon official—apparently after being contacted by Pepsi lawyers—issued a contradictory statement that citizens could not own the jets under any circumstances. It's funny what you can do when you have enough influence, isn't it? – AndyFielding (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting to read in Wikipedia under Sea Harrier: "Sea Harrier FA2 registered N94422 (formerly Royal Navy serial number XZ439) Nalls Aviation St Mary's County, Maryland. The former Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA2 was purchased in 2006 by Art Nalls, who spent the next two years restoring it to flying condition. "

So it is possible for a civilian to own an operate a Harrier for airshow display purposes in the US. Andywebby (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to use the Netflix documentary as a source?

It has information important to the article in it for obvious reasons, such as where the $700,000.50 check came from, aditional context to the court proceedings, like attempts made by pepsi to ensure that no jury would be present in the hearings. That sorta thing.

Would the Netflix documentary be considered reliable? Genabab (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think if the documentary has sources, then it could have a possibility of being reliable. Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 16:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Are there not RS covering the documentary itself? BD2412 T 18:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Pepsi points difference

In the introduction it says: ”PepsiCo would re-release the advertisement, valuing the jet at 700,000,000 Pepsi Points.”, this I take to mean 7 billion points.

However later in the article, in the Aftermath section, it says ”Pepsi continued to air the commercial, but it updated the cost of the Harrier Jet to 700 million Pepsi Points”.

700 million and 7 billion are of course completely different numbers and thus the article contradicts itself. Fredrik9999 (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fredrik9999 700,000,000 is 700 million, not 7 billion. 24.15.60.125 (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

According to the source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/1996-man-sues-pepsi-for-not-giving-him-a-harrier-jet/

The points were changed to 700 million so that’s the number that should be in the article. Fredrik9999 (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no German Version???

Where is the german version of the article? 2003:E6:6F22:8790:88C5:B3A2:13AA:1272 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)