Law 421 Week 4
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
Did the parties have a contract?
If there was a contract between Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou it was a bilateral contract that was binding when BTT (offeror) paid Chou (offeree) $25K in exchange for limited negotiation privileges for a 90-day period. Consequently, BTT bought the rights to negotiate the distribution agreements for Chou’s board game. A bilateral contract is an agreement of two promises and two performances. The agreement stipulated that at the end of the 90-day period, there wasn’t a distribution agreement unless it was in writing. Considering that an oral contract may result in a binding contract it is my assumption that there was a contract for the 90 day negation period with the exception of the distribution.
Facts in favor or against Chou
The facts that weight in favor of Chou are the verbal agreement was accepted by both parties. Also it was agreed that the distribution contract would not exist unless it was in writing. A fact that can favor against Chou is that he was paid for a promise or performance. Another fact that weighs against Chou was that he did not reject the agreement that was e-mailed to him, therefore any and all terms in that contract were binding whether or not he agreed to them after the fact.
E-mail communication impact
Yes, the document that BTT had sent to Chou was a legal binding contract for the distribution as the document was not rejected by Chou. Also the fact that BTT asked Chou to draw up an agreement after months had passed and Chou responded with the agreement.
Statute of frauds
In regards to contracts, the statutes of fraud are pertinent when a statute of frauds absolutely asks for written evidence. The mailbox rule came into effect when Chou had received the contract made by BTT and sent via email as Chou did not reject it. However, in this situation Chou never replied to BTT’s e-mail, thus the contract agreement was established
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
Did the parties have a contract?
If there was a contract between Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou it was a bilateral contract that was binding when BTT (offeror) paid Chou (offeree) $25K in exchange for limited negotiation privileges for a 90-day period. Consequently, BTT bought the rights to negotiate the distribution agreements for Chou’s board game. A bilateral contract is an agreement of two promises and two performances. The agreement stipulated that at the end of the 90-day period, there wasn’t a distribution agreement unless it was in writing. Considering that an oral contract may result in a binding contract it is my assumption that there was a contract for the 90 day negation period with the exception of the distribution.
Facts in favor or against Chou
The facts that weight in favor of Chou are the verbal agreement was accepted by both parties. Also it was agreed that the distribution contract would not exist unless it was in writing. A fact that can favor against Chou is that he was paid for a promise or performance. Another fact that weighs against Chou was that he did not reject the agreement that was e-mailed to him, therefore any and all terms in that contract were binding whether or not he agreed to them after the fact.
E-mail communication impact
Yes, the document that BTT had sent to Chou was a legal binding contract for the distribution as the document was not rejected by Chou. Also the fact that BTT asked Chou to draw up an agreement after months had passed and Chou responded with the agreement.
Statute of frauds
In regards to contracts, the statutes of fraud are pertinent when a statute of frauds absolutely asks for written evidence. The mailbox rule came into effect when Chou had received the contract made by BTT and sent via email as Chou did not reject it. However, in this situation Chou never replied to BTT’s e-mail, thus the contract agreement was established