#1. Would the April 6th advertisement have been an offer? Why or why not? You must use the entire rule of law for an offer and do a complete analysis. #2. Why was the April 13th advertisement an offer (you can't say "because the court said so.") You must again use the entire rule of law for an advertisement and to a complete analysis. Warning; the case does not specifically provide an answer for everything that I am asking. Morris Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. This case grows out of the alleged refusal of the defendant to sell to the plaintiff a certain fur piece which it had offered for sale in a newspaper advertisement. It appears from the record that on April 6, 1956, the defendant published the following advertisement in a Minneapolis newspaper: "Saturday 9 a.m. sharp 3 Brand New Fur Coats Worth to $ 100.00 First Come, First Served $ 1 Each On April 13, the defendant again published an advertisement in the same newspaper as follows: "Saturday 9 a.m. 2 Brand New Pastel Mink 3-Skin Scarfs Selling for $ 89.50 Out they go Saturday Each $ 1.00 1 Black Lapin Stole Beautiful, worth $ 139.50 - $ 1.00 First Come, First Served"