Law 421 Week 4 Essay Example
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
Jennifer Ferrante
LAW/421 – Contemporary Business Law
Date August 18, 2013
Instructor Name Jane Schneider
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
In week four’s theory practice, we reviewed the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker vs Chou in regards to determining the validity of a contract. As we’ve reviewed, an agreement or mutual assent is of course essential to a valid contract but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts. If his words and acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree, it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind (Melvin, 2010).
According to the theory practice, the contract between Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou was a verbal contract. While there was an email confirming the terms of agreement, this contract was never finalized. While they both verbally agreed to the terms, it was never formally written. The email provided to Chou was intended to solidify the contract, even though no use of the word “contract” was ever used. In regards to Chou, he could easily fight the case that it was to review the verbal agreement, even though no physical agreement was signed.
The factors that favor for Chou is the email he received from Big Time Toymaker reiterating the agreements of the verbal contract. He also received payment of $25,000 from Big Time Toymaker indicating the intent to move forward. On another note, Big Time Toymaker followed up requesting a draft for the agreement. However, what is against Chou was there was never a physical drafted agreement, signed by either party, stating that the contract is null and void and nonexistent unless it’s in writing. Big Time Toymaker could argue that Chou was under false assumptions that the email was a contract. Chou also drafted the distribution of agreement to Big Time Toymaker who did not respond nor sign the contract. Another factor that can
Jennifer Ferrante
LAW/421 – Contemporary Business Law
Date August 18, 2013
Instructor Name Jane Schneider
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
In week four’s theory practice, we reviewed the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker vs Chou in regards to determining the validity of a contract. As we’ve reviewed, an agreement or mutual assent is of course essential to a valid contract but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts. If his words and acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree, it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind (Melvin, 2010).
According to the theory practice, the contract between Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou was a verbal contract. While there was an email confirming the terms of agreement, this contract was never finalized. While they both verbally agreed to the terms, it was never formally written. The email provided to Chou was intended to solidify the contract, even though no use of the word “contract” was ever used. In regards to Chou, he could easily fight the case that it was to review the verbal agreement, even though no physical agreement was signed.
The factors that favor for Chou is the email he received from Big Time Toymaker reiterating the agreements of the verbal contract. He also received payment of $25,000 from Big Time Toymaker indicating the intent to move forward. On another note, Big Time Toymaker followed up requesting a draft for the agreement. However, what is against Chou was there was never a physical drafted agreement, signed by either party, stating that the contract is null and void and nonexistent unless it’s in writing. Big Time Toymaker could argue that Chou was under false assumptions that the email was a contract. Chou also drafted the distribution of agreement to Big Time Toymaker who did not respond nor sign the contract. Another factor that can