Law. Big Time Toymaker
Big Time Toymaker
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? According to the scenario, both Big Time Toymaker and Chou did partake in an oral contract. During the meeting both parties reached an oral distribution agreement, and a confirmation of the terms of the agreement was sent by e-mail.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts in favor of Chou would oral agreement and email he received from Big Time Toymaker. The facts against Chou would be that there was never an actual written agreement drafted by Chou or the fact aht Chou entered into an exclusive negotiation rights agreement for 90 days specifically stating, “NO contract exists unless it is in writing.” Finally, no written agreement was turned in within the original 90 day period stipulated in the exclusive negotiation right.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? Yes, because the email represents the acknowledgment by both parties of the distribution agreement made in the meeting despite the e-mail failing to mention the word “contract.”
4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? The role of fraud applies to this scenario. “Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the statute of frauds applies to any contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more, and any lease transaction for goods amounting to $1,000 or more” (Melvin, 2010). Chou received a payment of $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period, in which was not met.
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?
6. Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? According to the scenario, both Big Time Toymaker and Chou did partake in an oral contract. During the meeting both parties reached an oral distribution agreement, and a confirmation of the terms of the agreement was sent by e-mail.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts in favor of Chou would oral agreement and email he received from Big Time Toymaker. The facts against Chou would be that there was never an actual written agreement drafted by Chou or the fact aht Chou entered into an exclusive negotiation rights agreement for 90 days specifically stating, “NO contract exists unless it is in writing.” Finally, no written agreement was turned in within the original 90 day period stipulated in the exclusive negotiation right.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? Yes, because the email represents the acknowledgment by both parties of the distribution agreement made in the meeting despite the e-mail failing to mention the word “contract.”
4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? The role of fraud applies to this scenario. “Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the statute of frauds applies to any contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more, and any lease transaction for goods amounting to $1,000 or more” (Melvin, 2010). Chou received a payment of $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period, in which was not met.
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?
6. Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this