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
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
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract? Chou and BTT reach the point of having a contract when they agree to all terms. In the email send by BTT covering the obligations of the parties and the terms of the agreement‚ BTT showed objective intent. According to Melvin‚” Objective intent Requirement for an offer to have legal effect necessitating that generally‚ the offer or must have a serious intention to become
Premium Contract Common law Contract law
In this document of LAW 421 Week 4 Big Time Toymaker you will find the next information: 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 what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract? What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Does the
Premium Contract Strategy Answer
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker. The parties did have a contract for exclusive negotiation rights as stated in the case scenario. Big Time Toymaker (BTT) paid Chou $25‚000 for a 90-day period of exclusivity‚ thus prohibiting Chou from soliciting or entertaining offers from other parties. The agreement stipulated that unless it was written no distribution contract existed. Prior to the 90-days elapsing‚ the parties reached an oral agreement and BTT sent Chou an e-mail titled “Strat Deal” covering
Premium Contract Contract law
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
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
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 LAW/421 Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Big Time Toymaker (BTT) develops‚ manufactures‚ and distributes board games and other toys in North America‚ Chou is the inventor of a new strategy game he calls Strat. BTT had an interest in distributing Strat and entered into an agreement with Chou‚ offering him $25‚000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. This agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing
Premium
1. What are the various capital-budgeting tools currently used by leading firms? Define each‚ and discuss the accept/reject criterion for each. Which one is “best‚” and why is it best? 2. Evaluate the capital-budgeting criteria of Euroland Foods on page 326. Their “Minimum Acceptable IRR” criterion is wrong. Why? Also‚ why is their criteria not a complete set of criteria with which to evaluate projects? 3. Evaluate the “Minimum Acceptable IRR” returns that Euroland uses for different types
Premium Typography Internal rate of return Ranking