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 end of the scenario‚ BTT states that it is not interested in distributing Chou’s new strategy game‚ Strat. Assuming BTT and Chou have a contract‚ and BTT has breached the contract by not distributing the game‚ discuss what remedies might or might not apply. Explain your answers and refer to Section 7-6 in Ch. 7 for support. 1. At
Premium Contract
had a contract as soon as BTT sent over the email names Strat Deal. If it weren’t in the exclusive negotiation agreement that stated the no distribution contract valid unless it’s in writing‚ then I would say they were in a contract when Chou accepted the 25‚000 from BTT for the 90-days exclusive rights. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? I think the facts that weigh in for Chou is the fact that BTT sent an email that was titled
Premium Contract
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 were also emails sent‚ but a formal contract was never executed. As simple as Melvin’s
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
that there was a contract in place when BTT sent an email to Chau talking about the original terms of agreement. BTT sent Chou an e-mail where the topic line read “Strat Deal.” This email reiterated the main elements of the agreement. The elements included fees‚ the rights and responsibilities of both parties‚ and the length of time the project should be done.” This is when the contract became legal binding. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent
Premium Contract
Theory to Practice Law421 3/31/2014 Theory to Practice Big Time Toymaker (BTT) develops‚ manufactures and distributes toys and board games. An inventor named Chou created a board game called Strat. Chous invention caught the attention of BTT and they sought out to negotiate with Chou. During the time of communication between both Chou and BTT an agreement was made. Both parties agreed to BTT having exclusive negotiating wrights for a 90-day period in exchange for $25‚000.00. The agreement
Premium Contract
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‚
Premium
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 agreement by not releasing the game‚ discuss what solutions may or may not apply. At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract? By studying the situation
Premium Contract
Big Time Toymaker At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract? Chou and BTT had a contract at the point they agreed to all the terms. By including the obligations of the parties and the terms of the agreement‚ the manager showed objective intent. A written contract was not necessary since this was a contract primarily dealing with services to distribute the game‚ not a production contract or a sales contract. Had it involved a goods contract to buy or sell‚ which under the Statutes
Premium Contract Digital signature
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 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
Premium