Contract law case involving limited number of products?

Is there a case in contract law where someone promises a group of people a reward for completing a quiz correctly, but then they don't have enough of the reward to give it to all of them. I seem to remember reading it but can't find it anywhere?! Its something to do with the principle of the reasonable person I think, like it was unreasonable for them to have enough for everyone so its not contractually binding?Contract law case involving limited number of products?
The contract is binding. He promised this group a reward, so he must pay.





If he doesn't pay, the other parties may sue for damages.Contract law case involving limited number of products?
The only example I can think of where the 'reasonable person' logic comes into play is in advertising, where a mistaken advertisement offers to sell a product for a price which no reasonable person would expect to be correct. For instance selling a car for $1.





While the advertisement would normally be considered a binding offer, the reasonable person doctrine would allow that offer to be withdrawn, since no reasonable person would expect to get a car for $1.
Careful with the reasonable man standard.





Off the top of my head, in Law School we studied the case of a store running an ad stating that fur and mink coats were to be sold to the first person in line at THIS specific store at THIS specific time for THIS specific price.





The store claimed that it didn't owe this man anything because it was simply an ad and the reasonable man would not expect to get an article of that caliber for that cheap.





Wrong.





An ad that is THAT specific constitutes and qualifies as a legally binding contract.





There's all 6 elements to a contract in that ad and the relationship created by the first in line is considered the acceptance.





Hope this helps!