Big Time Toymaker
Big Time Toymaker
Deborah Daka
Law/421
November 24, 2014
Charles Hughes
Big Time Toymaker
“According to the Legal Environment of Business 1e Chapter 6: “1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?” In this scenario, it stated no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p. 155). “2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?” (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p. 155). Factors in favor, is the payment of $25,000, the meeting when the oral agreement taken place, and the email sent from BTT manager. Factor that would be against is that there was no follow-up to obtain a contract in writing signed by both parties; also, BTT came under new management. “3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?” (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p. 155) Yes , because it met the elements of a contract. “4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?” (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p. 155). The statute of frauds would not apply “Under the Uniform Commercial Code would apply to the sale or lease of goods” (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p. 151). In the scenario, it was a sale for service and requires a signature. “5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake?” Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided?” (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p.155). No because a signed contract did not exist. Based on the e-mail, Chou could claim a mistake because he considered the email as a contract. BTT could say the timeframe had passed, and they came under new management.
Big Time Toy Maker
6. “Assuming arguendo, that this email does not constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?” (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p. 155). Consideration would be they went back and forth about the
Deborah Daka
Law/421
November 24, 2014
Charles Hughes
Big Time Toymaker
“According to the Legal Environment of Business 1e Chapter 6: “1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?” In this scenario, it stated no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p. 155). “2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?” (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p. 155). Factors in favor, is the payment of $25,000, the meeting when the oral agreement taken place, and the email sent from BTT manager. Factor that would be against is that there was no follow-up to obtain a contract in writing signed by both parties; also, BTT came under new management. “3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?” (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p. 155) Yes , because it met the elements of a contract. “4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?” (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p. 155). The statute of frauds would not apply “Under the Uniform Commercial Code would apply to the sale or lease of goods” (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p. 151). In the scenario, it was a sale for service and requires a signature. “5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake?” Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided?” (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p.155). No because a signed contract did not exist. Based on the e-mail, Chou could claim a mistake because he considered the email as a contract. BTT could say the timeframe had passed, and they came under new management.
Big Time Toy Maker
6. “Assuming arguendo, that this email does not constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?” (Sean P. Melvin, 2011, p. 155). Consideration would be they went back and forth about the
References: Melvin, Sean P. (2011). Fundamentals of the Legal Environment of Business. Retrieved from Sean P. Melvin, LAW 421 website.