Toys R Us vs. Amazon
Toys R Us vs. Amazon.com
Internet Commerce
MAN223
Mary Crisp
Instructor: Criddle
Stevens-Henager College
November 09, 2011
Abstract
Topic: Answers Too
In this paper, I will summarize the arguments between Toys R Us and Amazon.com.
I will also summarize the rationale given by the judges for their decisions in this argument.
1. After a lengthy trial, the Court found that defendant Amazon.com had breached an agreement it had entered into with plaintiff ToysRUs.com LLC ("Toys R Us"), by permitting third parties to sell toys on Amazon's web site. Finding that this breach went to the substance of the parties' agreement - which as interpreted by the Court provided that Toys R Us was to be the sole third party toy retailer on Amazon's web site the Court granted Toys R Us request that the agreement be terminated. Notwithstanding, it is finding that such a breach had occurred, the Court did not award Toys R Us damages. The Court also rejected counterclaims asserted by Amazon, arising out of Toys R Us alleged failure to maintain levels of inventory sufficient to meet customer demand.
After a lengthy trial, the Court found that defendant Amazon.com had breached an agreement it had entered into with plaintiff ToysRUs.com LLC ("Toys R Us"), by permitting third parties to sell toys on Amazon's web site (Samson, 1997-2011). The judge found its ruling to be fare because amazon.com did not have the necessary reports that were required to be given yearly to Toys r us as part of the agreement. Therefore, after 2 years of battling on March 1, 2006 the Judge ruled against Amazon.com, gave Toys R Us the win, and settled for 51 million. AMAZON.com did not want a ten-year agreement with TRUCC. Long-term commitment in a world where the technology is advancing almost on a daily basis is difficult to maintain. The negotiators achieved their goal and closed a clever and profitable deal. What constitutes an exclusive partnership continues to be a challenge not only
Internet Commerce
MAN223
Mary Crisp
Instructor: Criddle
Stevens-Henager College
November 09, 2011
Abstract
Topic: Answers Too
In this paper, I will summarize the arguments between Toys R Us and Amazon.com.
I will also summarize the rationale given by the judges for their decisions in this argument.
1. After a lengthy trial, the Court found that defendant Amazon.com had breached an agreement it had entered into with plaintiff ToysRUs.com LLC ("Toys R Us"), by permitting third parties to sell toys on Amazon's web site. Finding that this breach went to the substance of the parties' agreement - which as interpreted by the Court provided that Toys R Us was to be the sole third party toy retailer on Amazon's web site the Court granted Toys R Us request that the agreement be terminated. Notwithstanding, it is finding that such a breach had occurred, the Court did not award Toys R Us damages. The Court also rejected counterclaims asserted by Amazon, arising out of Toys R Us alleged failure to maintain levels of inventory sufficient to meet customer demand.
After a lengthy trial, the Court found that defendant Amazon.com had breached an agreement it had entered into with plaintiff ToysRUs.com LLC ("Toys R Us"), by permitting third parties to sell toys on Amazon's web site (Samson, 1997-2011). The judge found its ruling to be fare because amazon.com did not have the necessary reports that were required to be given yearly to Toys r us as part of the agreement. Therefore, after 2 years of battling on March 1, 2006 the Judge ruled against Amazon.com, gave Toys R Us the win, and settled for 51 million. AMAZON.com did not want a ten-year agreement with TRUCC. Long-term commitment in a world where the technology is advancing almost on a daily basis is difficult to maintain. The negotiators achieved their goal and closed a clever and profitable deal. What constitutes an exclusive partnership continues to be a challenge not only
References: http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case424.cfm (Gary P Schneider, 1996) http://www.slideshare.net/chaturvedibraj/zappos-a-social-media-culture