Business Law Case Study: Big Time Toymaker
Big Time Toymaker
Helen Latscha
Elizabeth Martin
John Hong
David Cho
LAW/421
Week 4
November 19, 2014
Dr. Mark Pugatch BS, MBA, JD
Big Time Toymaker According to Melvin, 2011 “an agreement may result in a binding contract, whether it is an oral or written agreement between parties”. Big Time Toymaker (BTT) had shown interest in the new strategy game developed by Chou, called Strat. There were oral agreements for exclusive distribution rights, but had stipulations that it must be in writing. There were also emails sent, but a formal contract was never executed. As simple as Melvin’s definition of a contract may seem, certain situations and assumptions made can cloud the situation. In this case scenario, the team will address some of …show more content…
At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
Big Time Toymaker and Chou had initially made an oral agreement for $25,000 in exchange for exclusive distribution rights for 90 days, but also stipulated that no distribution contact existed unless it was in writing. Chou then took the action to draft a written contract. The follow up email from BTT, although cited all the terms agreed to, was never mutually agreed to by both parties and in our opinion, did not have mutual assent since Chou was silent and did not respond in kind. Chou could have replied to the email and confirmed agreement, but did not per the Mirror Rule. BTT then followed up with a fax asking for the contract, which Chou sent immediately, but BTT did not confirm terms of the agreement, so again, no mutual assent an acceptance from BTT in this scenario. Finally, BTT after a change in management advised Chou that they were not interested. Although many attempts were made using various mediums, mutual assent was not made in written form, so there was no contract at any point.
Question 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to …show more content…
The form of civil damage in this case would be consequential damage, which compensates the non-breaching party for foreseeable indirect losses; this was foresee able because any company manager would foresee the change in management and therefore should have better prepared for the change and management, as well as notify Chou of the upcoming changes or renegotiate the terms of current ongoing contract deals going on so that new management would be better prepared going into BTT organization. As for equitable relief, the court may grant Chou specific performance as a remedy, which would require BTT new management to fulfill the specific performance as promised by previous BTT management in the terms of original e-mail contract by BTT
Helen Latscha
Elizabeth Martin
John Hong
David Cho
LAW/421
Week 4
November 19, 2014
Dr. Mark Pugatch BS, MBA, JD
Big Time Toymaker According to Melvin, 2011 “an agreement may result in a binding contract, whether it is an oral or written agreement between parties”. Big Time Toymaker (BTT) had shown interest in the new strategy game developed by Chou, called Strat. There were oral agreements for exclusive distribution rights, but had stipulations that it must be in writing. There were also emails sent, but a formal contract was never executed. As simple as Melvin’s definition of a contract may seem, certain situations and assumptions made can cloud the situation. In this case scenario, the team will address some of …show more content…
At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
Big Time Toymaker and Chou had initially made an oral agreement for $25,000 in exchange for exclusive distribution rights for 90 days, but also stipulated that no distribution contact existed unless it was in writing. Chou then took the action to draft a written contract. The follow up email from BTT, although cited all the terms agreed to, was never mutually agreed to by both parties and in our opinion, did not have mutual assent since Chou was silent and did not respond in kind. Chou could have replied to the email and confirmed agreement, but did not per the Mirror Rule. BTT then followed up with a fax asking for the contract, which Chou sent immediately, but BTT did not confirm terms of the agreement, so again, no mutual assent an acceptance from BTT in this scenario. Finally, BTT after a change in management advised Chou that they were not interested. Although many attempts were made using various mediums, mutual assent was not made in written form, so there was no contract at any point.
Question 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to …show more content…
The form of civil damage in this case would be consequential damage, which compensates the non-breaching party for foreseeable indirect losses; this was foresee able because any company manager would foresee the change in management and therefore should have better prepared for the change and management, as well as notify Chou of the upcoming changes or renegotiate the terms of current ongoing contract deals going on so that new management would be better prepared going into BTT organization. As for equitable relief, the court may grant Chou specific performance as a remedy, which would require BTT new management to fulfill the specific performance as promised by previous BTT management in the terms of original e-mail contract by BTT