Law 421 Case Scenarios: Big Time Toymaker
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
LAW/421
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
Chou and BTT reach the point of having a contract when they agree to all terms. In the email send by BTT covering the obligations of the parties and the terms of the agreement, BTT showed objective intent. According to Melvin,” Objective intent Requirement for an offer to have legal effect necessitating that generally, the offer or must have a serious intention to become bound by the offer and the terms of the offer must be reasonably certain” (Melvin, 2011, pa 724). Because the contract did not involve the sale of goods, land, or lease of goods or land a written contract was not necessary. In the case of Chou and BTT contract, this situation deals with services for the distribution of the game, and not a production contract or a sales contract.
What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent? …show more content…
Chou has some facts in his favor.
Three days prior to the end of the 90 day the participants reached an oral distribution agreement at a meeting and soon thereafter, an email was transmitted to Chou from a BTT representative with the specifics of the agreement. The email stated, “That all of the terms had been agreed upon.” Chou sends a draft distribution contract spelling out the specifics of the agreement as per the receiving email from the BBT. The fact that may be against Chou is that the contract never had an actual signature on it because was a draft. Lastly, the contract of Strat would have surpassed the 500.00 limit (Amended UCC § 2-201(1)) of the Statute of
Frauds
Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in questions 1 and 2?
Yes, it has an impact on my analysis. Section 7 of UETA, "Record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.” (Uniform Law Commission, 2014, para 6)
References
Melvin, S. P. (2011). THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT of BUSINESS: A MANAGERIAL APPROACH:Theory to Practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Uniform Law Commission. (2014). Electronic Transactions Act Summary. Retrieved from http://www.uniformlaws.org/ActSummary.aspx?title=Electronic+Transactions+Act
LAW/421
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
Chou and BTT reach the point of having a contract when they agree to all terms. In the email send by BTT covering the obligations of the parties and the terms of the agreement, BTT showed objective intent. According to Melvin,” Objective intent Requirement for an offer to have legal effect necessitating that generally, the offer or must have a serious intention to become bound by the offer and the terms of the offer must be reasonably certain” (Melvin, 2011, pa 724). Because the contract did not involve the sale of goods, land, or lease of goods or land a written contract was not necessary. In the case of Chou and BTT contract, this situation deals with services for the distribution of the game, and not a production contract or a sales contract.
What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent? …show more content…
Chou has some facts in his favor.
Three days prior to the end of the 90 day the participants reached an oral distribution agreement at a meeting and soon thereafter, an email was transmitted to Chou from a BTT representative with the specifics of the agreement. The email stated, “That all of the terms had been agreed upon.” Chou sends a draft distribution contract spelling out the specifics of the agreement as per the receiving email from the BBT. The fact that may be against Chou is that the contract never had an actual signature on it because was a draft. Lastly, the contract of Strat would have surpassed the 500.00 limit (Amended UCC § 2-201(1)) of the Statute of
Frauds
Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in questions 1 and 2?
Yes, it has an impact on my analysis. Section 7 of UETA, "Record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.” (Uniform Law Commission, 2014, para 6)
References
Melvin, S. P. (2011). THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT of BUSINESS: A MANAGERIAL APPROACH:Theory to Practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Uniform Law Commission. (2014). Electronic Transactions Act Summary. Retrieved from http://www.uniformlaws.org/ActSummary.aspx?title=Electronic+Transactions+Act