Reply #208: That's a very simplistic view

[HamdenRice]

You are referring to old fashioned, first year law school cases and principles that an advertisement is not an offer, and therefore a consumer cannot accept that offer and create a binding contract.

But that's a very simplistic understanding of the modern law concerning ads. For example, there are modern statutes concerning truth in advertising that would give a person a remedy for responding to an ad that the business tried to withdraw.

Also, you forget that this customer did in fact enter into a contract! The old fashioned principle you are referring to is whether a contract can be created by responding to an ad, but here the contract was created. So whether there was a contract -- the subject of those ancient cases -- is moot.

The question the OP raises is, what are the terms of the contract that he definitely entered. My point was that the advertisement, as well as other materials he received like the invoice, could all constitute the terms of the contract. If there were advertisements current at the time that said he would get certain financing terms and the parties then entered the contract, those ads could be part of the terms.