Secondly there was no agreement in this case. PepsiCo only gave a humorous advert. John did not get into the advert to proof whether it was true or not. Further, according to this theory, the third party (Jury.) will only determine where the contract arises. In John's case the contract does not arise, as all valid essentials to constitute a contract were not taken into consideration.
The court held that there was no valid contract simply because this case was a mere advert which did not consist the requisites of a valid contract like offer and acceptance. There is also no agreement as well as an object to contract for.
Advertisements are generally not considered as advertisements. This is because for an offer it must made to a specific person and not public. Therefore advertisements, which are made to the public, in general cannot be an offer.
In a reward situation, the offer is made to only one person who performs that task. The task to be performed in reward situation is to be done by one person. For instance if 'A' offers a reward to anyone who will recover his lost property, no one is bound to recover the lost property but 'A' is bound to give the promised reward to any one who mighty recover the property. Thus in Leonard's case, the company was not bound to reward anybody on completion or on fulfilling their requirement.