Big Time Toymaker Case Scenario Essay Example
Big Time Toymaker Case Scenario
LAW/421
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
I do not think the two parties involved ever had a contract. In the scenario, the parties reached an agreement only three days before the end of a 90-day deadline set in the original negotiation contract. In the original negotiation contract, it states that there would be no distribution contract unless it was in writing. When the BTT manager sent the e-mail to Chou, he mentioned the terms of a distribution agreement, but it does not make the email a contract as neither party signed it. Only an oral agreement was reached. Without a legally binding draft and the signature of both parties present, no contract existed.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
BTT had paid Chou $25,000 for the exclusive negotiation rights to his board game which lead Chou to believe they were serious about coming to an agreement on a distribution contract. This is a fact that would weigh in favor of Chou. However, both parties only made an oral agreement, and not a written contract to show this fact. Since the contract was not drafted within the original 90-day period, the new management was not obligated to distribute the board game and therefore, had every right to turn Chou away instead of honoring the oral contract.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
No, it did not have any impact on my analysis of the situation. E-mail is a form of electronic communication, not a written and signed contract. While both parties may have communicated their intentions and terms of the contract, they never printed and signed any form of a written agreement. This factor makes all of the difference when it comes to enforceable contracts. What BTT and Chou had was not a binding or enforceable contract.
4. What role does the statute of
LAW/421
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
I do not think the two parties involved ever had a contract. In the scenario, the parties reached an agreement only three days before the end of a 90-day deadline set in the original negotiation contract. In the original negotiation contract, it states that there would be no distribution contract unless it was in writing. When the BTT manager sent the e-mail to Chou, he mentioned the terms of a distribution agreement, but it does not make the email a contract as neither party signed it. Only an oral agreement was reached. Without a legally binding draft and the signature of both parties present, no contract existed.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
BTT had paid Chou $25,000 for the exclusive negotiation rights to his board game which lead Chou to believe they were serious about coming to an agreement on a distribution contract. This is a fact that would weigh in favor of Chou. However, both parties only made an oral agreement, and not a written contract to show this fact. Since the contract was not drafted within the original 90-day period, the new management was not obligated to distribute the board game and therefore, had every right to turn Chou away instead of honoring the oral contract.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
No, it did not have any impact on my analysis of the situation. E-mail is a form of electronic communication, not a written and signed contract. While both parties may have communicated their intentions and terms of the contract, they never printed and signed any form of a written agreement. This factor makes all of the difference when it comes to enforceable contracts. What BTT and Chou had was not a binding or enforceable contract.
4. What role does the statute of