Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Rhonda Burrows Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker We were asked to answer questions one through six based on the scenario in the “Theory to Practice” section‚ and to include the following in our response: 1. At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract? My Answer: When both parties agreed Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou agreed to the terms‚ obligations‚ which covered intent‚ and followed through when BTT paid Chou $25‚000 in exchange for exclusive
Premium Contract Marketing Common law
Big Time Toymaker Helen Latscha Elizabeth Martin John Hong David Cho LAW/421 Week 4 November 19‚ 2014 Dr. Mark Pugatch BS‚ MBA‚ JD Big Time Toymaker According to Melvin‚ 2011 “an agreement may result in a binding contract‚ whether it is an oral or written agreement between parties”. Big Time Toymaker (BTT) had shown interest in the new strategy game developed by Chou‚ called Strat. There were oral agreements for exclusive distribution rights‚ but had stipulations that it must be in writing. There
Premium Contract Common law Contract law
Big Time Toymaker Scenario Angela Brinnen LAW 421 August 4‚ 2014 Barry Preston Big Time Toymaker Scenario At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract? After carefully reviewing all of the information about the case of Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou‚ I have found that there were two different contracts in place. In the text it describes a contract as “a promise or set of promises enforceable by law” (Melvin‚ 2014)‚ these contracts can be oral or written. The first contract in place is
Premium Contract Contract law Common law
Big Time Toymaker Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Big Time Toymaker (BTT) develops‚ manufactures‚ and distributes board games and other toys to the United States‚ Mexico‚ and Canada. Chou is the inventor of a new strategy game he named Strat. 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. The exclusive negotiation agreement stipulated that no distribution
Premium Target Corporation Wal-Mart Management
parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts that Chou was in a verbal agreement with BTT will be helpful in proving that they had a preliminary agreement pending a written one. The fact that an email was sent to him with all the key terms‚ price‚ time frames and obligations is also helpful in proving that Chou had a valid agreement with BTT. I believe that that email would count as a binding contract since both parties had a promise pending performances. This was a mutual assessment in which there
Premium Contract
parties‚ there was no legally binding contract present. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? I would have to say that the facts weigh in favor of Chou in the sense that BTT showed big interest by the initial $25‚000 agreement for the negotiation rights. Next‚ the oral agreement that was met between the two parties. Finally‚ the follow-up email sent to Chou which entailed what would be included in a contract. Although there may
Premium
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker 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 conclusion of the situation‚ BTT says that it’s not serious about releasing Chou’s new technique game‚ Strat. Presuming BTT and Chou have got a deal‚ and BTT has breached the
Premium Contract
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
Premium
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
Premium
Reference: Melvin‚ S. P. (2011). Fundamentals of the Legal Environment of Business. Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook Collection database University of Phoenix. (2013). BUGusa‚ Inc. [Multimedia]. Retrieved from University of Phoenix‚ Law/421 website. Scenario: WIRETIME‚ Inc. (Janet) Has WIRETIME‚ Inc. committed any torts? If so‚ explain. Wiretime‚ Inc. has committed business competition tort or interference tort. Janet has a non-compete clause in her contract with BUGusa
Premium Tort Strict liability Negligence