Summary:
It is an activity that focuses on advertising as offer and the limits of their binding character, using as reference the perspective of comparative law (Brazilian system and the American system). It is intended that students strive to build consistent and creative legal arguments in difficult cases. In order to do that, they must simulate a judgement in the light of Brazilian law on a true case, decided in the United States, which involved an advertisement broadcasted on television.
Objective:
- GENERAL GOALS: treat the applicable advertising rules in Brazilian law in the light of the Consumer Protection Code.
- SPECIFIC GOALS:
- to conduct the students to reflect about the legal regime applicable to advertising as an offering in the light of a hard case. The case was the binding character of a TV commercial that alluded to the possibility of exchanging Pepsi caps for a US military fighter jet.
- to introduce notions of rights compared to students and discuss the similarities and differences between the solutions offered by each legal system.
- to develop the capacity of legal argumentation, creativity in the search for solutions of difficult cases, and the ability to analyze the similarities and differences between legal systems.
Dynamics:
- TEACHING METHOD: simulation, in which the students interact with each other from defined roles.
- REQUIREMENTS: there was an advance preparation by reading the following materials: (i) case decision on Leonard v. Pepsico; (ii) MARQUES, Cláudia Lima. Contratos no Código de Defesa do Consumidor. 5ª ed. São Paulo: RT, 2005. p. 745-757.
- INTRODUCTION TO THE DYNAMICS: the professor started the class with the presentation of the advertising (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdackF2H7Qc). Then, based on case Leonard v. Pepsico (attachment 1), the room was divided into three major groups: Leonard’s lawyers (group A, 7-10 members), Pepsico’s lawyers (group B, 7-10 members) and judges (group C of 5 or 7 members). Each group received written guidelines and had a period of one hour to prepare and could consult legislation, judicial decisions and doctrinal materials available at the internet. The professor walked around groups to answer questions or discuss possible ways or case’s problems.
- DEVELOPMENT OF THE DYNAMICS: after preparation, the groups started discussions in the following order:
1) A Group members presented their arguments individually (6 minutes);
2) B Group members presented their answers individually (6 minutes);
3) A Group members presented their replica individually (6 minutes);
4) B Group members presented their rejoinder individually (6 minutes).
5) Members of the Group C (judges) presented their votes individually (8 minutes).
The professor just coordinates the activity, intervening only when the manifestation of the students contained serious mistakes. So that the judges would not become oblivious to the activity, they should also summarize the arguments brought by each party. All students must necessarily manifest themselves during the activity, but could not speak more than once in the lawyer or judge position. If the student had any more ideas of arguments, he should convey the idea to the group’s colleague, and then he or she could manifest on the topic. During the debate, it was not allowed the intervention of other students, even if they were members of the group. The debate and the judgment should stick to the facts narrated in the case, but students could use arguments that have not been worked on.
.
- END OF THE DYNAMICS: the dynamics ended with the presentation of the vote by the judges.
- ATTENTION IN THE CLASSROOM:
1) It is recommended that the professor shows the video to students. For this, he must have access to this type of media.
Evaluation:
- FEEDBACK: the professor gave feedback to the students during the next class, resuming terminological inaccuracies and discussing the legal central concepts of the case.
- GRADE EVALUATION: the posture of the students during the discussions and the simulation was taken into account for participation grade. The grade was individual, based on the students' activity in the group discussion, presentation and simulation. This grade composed the final grade of interest. The professor appreciated technicians, consistent and creative arguments that observing the presence of the operation of prior reading critically and carefully.
Observation:
1) The professor may ask that each group delivers a list of arguments that will be used in the debate, for control and evaluation purposes.
2) When the discussion is more technical, the professor can start the next class returning and specifying the used terms.
3) It is possible to vote by ballot, filled out by all students, after discussion between the parties, which creates more expectations and reactions from the students.
