Connection lost
Server error
Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A department store advertised a sewing machine at a special price. When a customer tendered the advertised price, the store refused to sell. The court held the advertisement was not a binding offer, but merely an invitation for customers to make offers.
Legal Significance: This case establishes the prevailing American rule that general advertisements are not binding offers, but are invitations to negotiate. A customer’s attempt to purchase is the offer, which the merchant is free to accept or reject.
Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The defendant, The Elder & Johnston Co., placed an advertisement in the Dayton Shopping News for an “all electric sewing machine” for $26.00, designated as a “Thursday Only Special.” On the specified Thursday, the plaintiff, Ms. Craft, saw the advertisement and went to the defendant’s store. She tendered $26.00 to the defendant in an attempt to purchase the sewing machine. The defendant refused to sell her the machine at the advertised price. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the advertisement constituted a binding offer which she had accepted by tendering the purchase price, thereby forming a contract. She sought damages of $149.00, the difference between the advertised price and the machine’s alleged actual value of $175.00. The trial court was asked to determine the sole question of whether the advertisement constituted a legally binding offer. The trial court found it was not an offer and dismissed the plaintiff’s petition.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a general newspaper advertisement that lists a specific item for sale at a specific price constitute a binding offer that can be accepted by a customer to form an enforceable contract?
No. The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, holding that the defendant’s Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit i
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a general newspaper advertisement that lists a specific item for sale at a specific price constitute a binding offer that can be accepted by a customer to form an enforceable contract?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the traditional common law doctrine that advertisements are invitations Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim
Legal Rule
A general advertisement published in a newspaper is not an offer, but Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehende
Legal Analysis
The court determined that the advertisement did not constitute a binding offer Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A newspaper advertisement is generally an invitation to make an offer,