LAW 421 WEEK 4
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
The only agreement that was made between the two was at the start.. The 90 day period that was paid off by BTT for Chou. After this there was no actual contract. They did discuss about having a contract and making it go through email but in the end there came out to be no contract. As it came out to be with no legal signatures from either of the sides then there was nothing to keep.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
The favor goes to Chou because BTT showed a lot when they gave in the 25,000. After that the oral agreement came to be played in. And last came the final details of what else should be included all in it. There was a chance of making it a contract but like stated before without a signature nothing came about.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in
Questions 1 and 2 (above)? 1- There was no analysis based of a email and still giving the factor of no signature created nothing in the end. 2-Basically it’s a yes and no deal. You can tell that Chou seen the facts of the email becoming a contract, but if there is no signature then there was no 90 days.
4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
The one type of item that is accused by the potential fraud is the 500 $ sale item. The main original part of agreement between the two was the $25,000 but that would have been proven fraud in the end. With the emails being send by both of them and no names with no signatures they would have had nothing out of the whole case.
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?
They cant and did not avoid the whole thing because there were mistakes made. The doctrine is used mainly for the factor of steading everything because
The only agreement that was made between the two was at the start.. The 90 day period that was paid off by BTT for Chou. After this there was no actual contract. They did discuss about having a contract and making it go through email but in the end there came out to be no contract. As it came out to be with no legal signatures from either of the sides then there was nothing to keep.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
The favor goes to Chou because BTT showed a lot when they gave in the 25,000. After that the oral agreement came to be played in. And last came the final details of what else should be included all in it. There was a chance of making it a contract but like stated before without a signature nothing came about.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in
Questions 1 and 2 (above)? 1- There was no analysis based of a email and still giving the factor of no signature created nothing in the end. 2-Basically it’s a yes and no deal. You can tell that Chou seen the facts of the email becoming a contract, but if there is no signature then there was no 90 days.
4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
The one type of item that is accused by the potential fraud is the 500 $ sale item. The main original part of agreement between the two was the $25,000 but that would have been proven fraud in the end. With the emails being send by both of them and no names with no signatures they would have had nothing out of the whole case.
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?
They cant and did not avoid the whole thing because there were mistakes made. The doctrine is used mainly for the factor of steading everything because