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 negotiation rights for a 90-day period. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? My Answer: The verbal agreement weighed in favor of Chou‚ as it was stated three days before the end of the exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. Also the email sent thereafter from a BTT management
Premium Contract Marketing Common law
have a contract? BTT and Chou reached an agreement when BTT paid him the $25‚000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90 day period. Although the negotiation agreement specified no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing‚ the two came to an oral agreement three days prior to the 90 day deadline. This was followed up by a correspondence by the BTT manager in the “Strat Deal” e-mail that confirmed the oral agreement between Chou and BTT. 2. What facts
Premium
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 parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would
Premium Contract Strategy Answer
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 the key terms of the distribution agreement reaffirming
Premium Contract 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
The 90 day period that was paid off by BTT for Chou. After this there was no actual contract. They did discuss about having a contract and making it go through email but in the end there came out to be no contract. As it came out to be with no legal signatures from either of the sides then there was nothing to keep. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The favor goes to Chou because BTT showed a lot when they gave in the 25
Premium Contract E-mail
2011‚ p. 155). “2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?” (Sean P. Melvin‚ 2011‚ p. 155). Factors in favor‚ is the payment of $25‚000‚ the meeting when the oral agreement taken place‚ and the email sent from BTT manager. Factor that would be against is that there was no follow-up to obtain a contract in writing signed by both parties; also‚ BTT came under new management. “3. Does the fact that the parties
Premium Contract
contract in place. In the case scenario they also agreed to have Chou memorialize their agreement. In the original negotiating contract it stated that a distribution agreement or contract must be in writing. Although Chou received an email from a BTT manager he assumed that BTT wanted to draft the agreement. Chou waited too long to follow up with BTT and exceeded the 90 day time frame. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? - Even
Premium
contract? Answer: Big Time Toymaker and Chou had an oral contract. In a meeting that included Big Time Toymaker and Chou an agreement was reached. Additionally‚ an e-mail was sent by Big Time Toymaker to Chou that confirmed the terms of the agreement that were discussed during the meeting. Question 2 What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Answer: There are three facts that are in favor of Chou. The first fact is‚ three days prior
Premium Contract Communication
did the parties have a contract? The parties had a contract when they spoke of and agreed on the deal that was later followed up by a BTT manager via email. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts that weigh in favor of chow include the email that was sent to him from the BTT manager as well as the fax that he sent. Although neither transmission was responded to‚ they were not denied. 3. Does the fact that the
Premium