Advertisements are discussed as a "special offer" type in your textbook.Explain this "advertisements rule" in your own words.How does this advertisements rule apply to Leonard v. Pepsico?Does it (the advertisements rule) suggest that a contractual "offer" was made in this case?

The Objective Theory of Contracts was also an important legal principle used by the judge in his decision on this case (Leonard v. PepsiCo). In your own words, explain the Objective Theory of Contracts (it is discussed in your textbook).Apply it to the facts of this case.Is it "reasonable" to assume Pepsi's commercial is a contractual "offer" for the sale of a Harrier Jet?Why or why not?

Based on your analysis of both the Advertisements Rule and the Objective Theory of Contracts, whose argument is stronger - Pepsi's or Mr. Leonard's? If you were the judge deciding this case how would you decide it?

Many companies feel they must include "disclaimers" at the end of all of their commercials because of cases like this and that "reasonable people" are no longer important our legal system.Do you agree or disagree?Should Pepsi have to put a disclaimer at the end of their advertisements that top secret military aircraft cannot be sold to high school students?Should Red Bull have to explain at the end of their commercials that their energy drink does not "give you wings" in a literal sense?