SummaryThis article examines the elements of a legal contract and how advertisements are not considered legal contracts in most cases. He will examine the case of Leonard v. Pepsico to determine what happens when an advertisement is viewed as a valid offer and responded to with that view. How rewards and auctions are viewed in legal terms. Finally, how does this apply to the creative idea of ​​boosting tourism by auctioning off Bigtown on eBay. Elements of a Legal Contract In order to have a legally binding contract, it must be valid and involve at least two parties. These are the offeror, the party making the offer, and the offeree, the party accepting the offer. A contract only exists if the offer is made and accepted. It must be clear and precise. They can be unilateral, meaning the offeror's offer is only accepted by the performance of an act requested by the offeree, or bilateral where the offeror's offer can be responded to by accepting or by rejecting the offer. The bilateral contract is binding like a promise for a promise. Furthermore, a valid contract has four elements: agreement, consideration, contractual capacity and lawful object (Cheeseman, 2006). The first element of a legally binding contract is the agreement. The agreement is about a clear understanding by all parties involved as to the nature of the offer and the resulting acceptance. This is called mutual assent (Cheeseman, 2006). The second element concerns consideration. Consideration is a benefit or right, something of legal value, negotiated and agreed in exchange for another benefit or right. It could be something as simple as mowing the lawn for $10 a week or something as complicated as building a house. The consideration is money in exchange for servi...... middle of paper ......mor was involved and it was not a serious offer. The simple fact that the school disruption caused by a Harrier Jet would be enough for a reasonable person to understand that this was not reality. It was also made clear that the offer was not available in certain regions. The court was clearly correct in ruling in favor of the defendant, Pepsico (Madison, 2005).Reference CitationsCheeseman, H. (2006). Contemporary business and online commerce law. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Nolo, (2006). Consideration. Retrieved January 19, 2006, from the Nolo Glossary website: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/AE6272D6-6D95-477A-9329B127CAFB66C6/alpha/C/.Madison, M. (2005). John dr leonard v pepsico, inc. Retrieved January 20, 2006 from Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. Website: http://www.law.pitt.edu/madison/contracts/supplement/leonard_v_pepsico.htm.