law421 Week 4 ind assignment
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
LAW/421
October 21, 2013
Read the “Theory to Practice” section at the end of Ch. 6 of the text.
Answer Questions 1 through 6 based on the scenario in the “Theory to Practice” section, and complete the following in your response:
At the end of the scenario, BTT states that it is not interested in distributing Chou’s new strategy game, Strat. Assuming BTT and Chou have a contract, and BTT has breached the contract by not distributing the game, discuss what remedies might or might not apply.
Explain your answers and refer to Section 7-6 in Ch. 7 for support.
Submit your answers.
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
Chou and BTT had a contract at the point they agreed to all the terms. By including the obligations of the parties and the terms of the agreement, the manager showed objective intent. A written contract was not necessary since this was a contract primarily dealing with services to distribute the game, not a production contract or a sales contract. Had it involved a goods contract to buy or sell, which under the Statutes of Frauds would not be a contract until all the terms were laid out in writing; that occurred when the manager from BTT emailed the terms which would have included his electronic signature and thus would have sealed the contract between the two. Also, if the contract is under common law, then the mailbox rule would say it went into effect when it was sent, not received.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
There are a few facts that weigh in favor of Chou. First, three days prior to the end of the 90 day exclusive negotiation rights agreement, they reached an oral agreement and then shortly thereafter, a business email from a BTT management representative was sent to Chou with the specifics of the agreement. The email stated “that
LAW/421
October 21, 2013
Read the “Theory to Practice” section at the end of Ch. 6 of the text.
Answer Questions 1 through 6 based on the scenario in the “Theory to Practice” section, and complete the following in your response:
At the end of the scenario, BTT states that it is not interested in distributing Chou’s new strategy game, Strat. Assuming BTT and Chou have a contract, and BTT has breached the contract by not distributing the game, discuss what remedies might or might not apply.
Explain your answers and refer to Section 7-6 in Ch. 7 for support.
Submit your answers.
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
Chou and BTT had a contract at the point they agreed to all the terms. By including the obligations of the parties and the terms of the agreement, the manager showed objective intent. A written contract was not necessary since this was a contract primarily dealing with services to distribute the game, not a production contract or a sales contract. Had it involved a goods contract to buy or sell, which under the Statutes of Frauds would not be a contract until all the terms were laid out in writing; that occurred when the manager from BTT emailed the terms which would have included his electronic signature and thus would have sealed the contract between the two. Also, if the contract is under common law, then the mailbox rule would say it went into effect when it was sent, not received.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
There are a few facts that weigh in favor of Chou. First, three days prior to the end of the 90 day exclusive negotiation rights agreement, they reached an oral agreement and then shortly thereafter, a business email from a BTT management representative was sent to Chou with the specifics of the agreement. The email stated “that
References: Melvin, S. P. (2011). The legal environment of business: A managerial approach: Theory to practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.