Instructions: Pretend that you are an attorney representing Leonard in the case. Answer the following questions and present arguments for why Leonard should win. Remember: if there is an offer, acceptance, and consideration, then a legally enforceable contract was formed. As a representative of Leonard, you will want to argue that all these things were present.

1. Why should the commercial constitute an offer? Argue that it did.
2. Did Leonard accept the offer? Explain how he accepted the offer.
3. Did both Leonard and Pepsi give consideration? If yes, what consideration did Leonard give? What consideration did Pepsi give?
4. Does Pepsi have any viable defenses (e.g., fraud, duress, violation of public policy) against the creation of a contract? What are arguments against these defenses? Remember, as Leonard's representative you don't want Pepsi to present any viable defenses.
5. After consulting with a person from the Defendant's side, who do you think should win the case?

Defendant Questionnaire

Instructions: Pretend that you are an attorney representing Pepsi in the case. Answer the following questions and present arguments for why Pepsi should win. Remember: if there is an offer, acceptance, and consideration, then a legally enforceable contract was formed. As a representative of Pepsi, you will want to argue that all these things were present. Furthermore, you will want to present affirmative defenses.

1. Why did the commercial not constitute an offer? Argue that it wasn't an offer.
2. Why did Leonard's submission of the check, 15 Pepsi points, and the Order Form not constitute an acceptance? Argue that it wasn't an acceptance.
3. Was there consideration given by Pepsi and Leonard? If yes, what was it? Why shouldn't it be consideration?
4. What affirmative defenses (e.g., duress, fraud, public policy) will you present?
5. After consulting with someone from the plaintiff's side, which side do you think should win the case?