Question

Joshua Gnaizda received an envelope in the mail from Time, Inc. The front of the envelope contained two see-through windows partially revealing the envelope contents. One window showed Joshua’s name and address. The other revealed the following statement:

JOSHUA A. GNAIZDA, I’LL FIVE YOU THIS VERSATILE NEW CALCULATOR WATCH FREE JUST FOR OPENING THIS ENVELOPE BEFORE FEBRUARY 15, 1985.
Beneath the offer was a picture of the calculator watch itself. Joshua’s mother opened the envelope and realized she had been deceived by a ploy to get her to open a piece of junk mail. The see-through window had not revealed the full extent of Time’s offer. Printed below the picture of the calculator watch, and not viewable through the see-through window were the following additional words: "AND MAILING THIS CERTIFICATE TODAY!" The certificate itself clearly required that Joshua purchase a subscription to Fortune magazine in order to receive the free calculator watch.
The good news was that Joshua could save up to 66% on the subscription, which might even be tax deductible. Even more important to the bargain hunter, prices may never be this low again. The bad news was that Time obviously had no intention of giving Joshua the versatile new calculator watch just for opening the envelope. Joshua’s parents sued on his behalf for, among other things, damages equal to the value of watch and $15,000,000 in punitive damages.
Is Time’s advertisement an offer to open a contract between them and Joshua? If Time did not make an offer, what did they do?

Answer 1

Answer and Explanation:

There is no contract between Time's and Joshua, because it is not legally binding to each other and it has not been signed by either party. So not a single party is liable for the contract as the contract is unsigned and non-liable

Time has used it as a promotional means only for promoting magazine subscriptions.

Therefore, a case can not be built on letter-based basis.