At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract? I found that the only actual agreement between the two parties was at the very beginning. The agreement that BTT paid $25‚000 to Chou for exclusive negotiation rights ended after the 90-day period. After this there was no actual contract. There was talk of a contract to be drafted and an email but neither was an actual contact. Since there were no signatures from both parties‚ there was no legally binding contract present. 2. What facts
Premium
1. At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract? I believe that there were two contracts made in this scenario. The first one was the verbal contract that sated that the stipulations of price and the fact that there needed to be a written contract before distributing the product. The email‚ since it was in writing can also count as a written contract; both parties had knowledge that there would be some sort of written agreement. Chou was in the right to think that the email stating the
Premium Contract
The Statute of Frauds clearly identifies what contracts have to be presented in the written format in order to remain enforceable (Reilly‚ 2000)‚ therefore written agreements should be signed by all parties to be binding. The Statute of Frauds is a rule of law requiring certain kinds of written contracts‚ not oral contracts since they are vague and frequently don’t provide sufficient proof of the terms agreed upon by each parties. Oral contracts create more complications and are the main reason for
Premium Contract Contract law Law
entire order totaling $2‚500. By this time‚ Wally has decided he does not want to purchase the fake Rolexes. He contacts Randy explain the situation wanting to return the watches and reimburse Randy for shipping costs. Randy in turn sues to enforce the original contract. Issue: The issue is whether the Illinois UCC Statute of Frauds deems contract unenforceable because it was never reduced to writing. Law: Under UCC §2-201 (3a)‚ “A contract that does not satisfy the requirements of subsection
Premium Contract
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 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
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
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
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
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 fact that the
Premium Contract Strategy Answer