Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Essay Example
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Based on the Case Scenario: Theory to Practice scenario involving Big Time Toymaker (BTT), a company that develops, manufactures, and distributes board games and other toys globally, entered into an agreement with Chou, an independent inventor of a new strategy game he name Strat, to distribute this new game. However, over more than a 90-day period, BTT reneged on the agreement and was in breach of contract stating BTT were no longer interested in distributing Chou's new strategy game. This paper examines whether BTT and Chou, in fact, have a contract, and what remedies may apply, through answering the following six questions.
At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? To answer this question, one must understand the difference between an agreement and a contract. "A contract is a written or a verbal agreement between two or more parties that is enforceable by law. An agreement is a written or verbal contract between two or more parties that is not enforceable by law" (Difference Between, 2012). Generally, whether a verbal or written agreement to contract was made, three elements need to be present. The three elements consist of the offer, acceptance, and consideration. This basically means that BTT and Chou had a meeting, and an offer was made, and thereby an exchange was also made as BTT paid Chou, and Chou accepted the exchange. Referring to the agreement between BTT and Chou, according to Melvin (2011, p. 155), "BTT was interested in distributing Strat and entered into an agreement with Chou whereby BTT paid him $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period." This can very well constitute as intent to contract.
What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties' objective intent to contract? A fact that an agreement was made that Chou could not negotiate any other agreement to distribute his new strategy game, Strat, for a 90-day period, unless it was in
At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? To answer this question, one must understand the difference between an agreement and a contract. "A contract is a written or a verbal agreement between two or more parties that is enforceable by law. An agreement is a written or verbal contract between two or more parties that is not enforceable by law" (Difference Between, 2012). Generally, whether a verbal or written agreement to contract was made, three elements need to be present. The three elements consist of the offer, acceptance, and consideration. This basically means that BTT and Chou had a meeting, and an offer was made, and thereby an exchange was also made as BTT paid Chou, and Chou accepted the exchange. Referring to the agreement between BTT and Chou, according to Melvin (2011, p. 155), "BTT was interested in distributing Strat and entered into an agreement with Chou whereby BTT paid him $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period." This can very well constitute as intent to contract.
What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties' objective intent to contract? A fact that an agreement was made that Chou could not negotiate any other agreement to distribute his new strategy game, Strat, for a 90-day period, unless it was in