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 Carlos Medrano LAW/421 November 19‚ 2014 Alice King 1. At what point‚ if ever‚ 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. Which included full details of prices‚ time frames and obligations of both parties. 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
Premium Contract Contract law Gentlemen's agreement
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 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 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
Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 May 20‚ 2014 Aileen S. Azadian Question 1 At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a 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’
Premium Contract Communication
Case Scenario: Big Time Toy Market LAW/421 Tuesday November 12th‚ 2013 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 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
Premium Contract
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
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
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