I don't know what to say. To me it is very obviously a joke. Even if the amount was not a giveaway, a teenager flying a fighter jet to school makes it obvious. The court decision [1] includes a lengthy explanation of why the inclusion is obviously meant to be a joke.

But note that even so the ridiculousness of it is as pointed out only one of three factors called out by the court as invalidating the claim. Even if the ad itself presented it entirely seriously that would not have bound Pepsi to provide one, because they did not make a binding offer.

Importantly, the ad is a humorous ad for the "Pepsi Stuff" loyalty program. The catalog itself did not contain the jet or an order form for the jet.

The court states [1] that "The general rule is that an advertisement does not constitute an offer." But the court goes on to cite precedent that even filling in an order form does not necessarily create a binding offer, and goes on to say:

> Under these principles, plaintiff's letter of March 27, 1996, with the Order Form and the appropriate number of Pepsi Points, constituted the offer. There would be no enforceable contract until defendant accepted the Order Form and cashed the check.

In other words, Pepsico did not make an offer. Plaintiff did, and because Pepsico didn't accept his order form and check, they did not enter into a contract with him to provide him with a jet.

The court provided for an exception and explained why it did not apply:

> The exception to the rule that advertisements do not create any power of acceptance in potential offerees is where the advertisement is "clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation," in that circumstance, "it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract."

but:

> First, the commercial cannot be regarded in itself as sufficiently definite, because it specifically reserved the details of the offer to a separate writing, the Catalog.[6] The commercial itself made no mention of the steps a potential offeree would be required to take to accept the alleged offer of a Harrier Jet.

.. and:

> Second, even if the Catalog had included a Harrier Jet among the items that could be obtained by redemption of Pepsi Points, the advertisement of a Harrier Jet by both television commercial and catalog would still not constitute an offer. As the Mesaros court explained, the absence of any words of limitation such as "first come, first served," renders the alleged offer sufficiently indefinite that no contract could be formed. See Mesaros, 845 F.2d at 1581. "A customer would not usually have reason to believe that the shopkeeper intended exposure to the risk of a multitude of acceptances resulting in a number of contracts exceeding the shopkeeper's inventory." Farnsworth, supra, at 242. There was no such danger in Lefkowitz, owing to the limitation "first come, first served."

Interesting because of how it relates to Hoovers infamous campaign is that they'd likely have been in less problems in the US, possibly dependent on the state, both for the above reason, and because of this:

> Fifth, the number of Pepsi Points the commercial mentions as required to "purchase" the jet is 7,000,000. To amass that number of points, one would have to drink 7,000,000 Pepsis (or roughly 190 Pepsis a day for the next hundred years an unlikely possibility), or one would have to purchase approximately $700,000 worth of Pepsi Points. The cost of a Harrier Jet is roughly $23 million dollars, a fact of which plaintiff was aware when he set out to gather the amount he believed necessary to accept the alleged offer. (See Affidavit of Michael E. McCabe, 96 Civ. 5320, Aug. 14, 1997, Exh. 6 (Leonard Business Plan).) Even if an objective, reasonable person were not aware of this fact, he would conclude that purchasing a fighter plane for $700,000 is a deal too good to be true.[13]

This is part of the argument for why it is clear that the offer was made in jest, and was mere puffery.

Basically: If something that appears to you to be an offer looks too good to be true, don't expect the other side to be held to making an offer unless they've actually made a very precise offer with sufficient limitations to make it clear. This alone should stand out in the ad - it is free of the kind of statements of various limitations typical of ads that are less humorous and clearly intended to be taken seriously tend to have in the US.

[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/...