Big Time Toymaker Scenario LAW/421 Big Time Toymaker Scenario In chapter six of The Legal Environment of Business: A Managerial Approach: Theory to Practice‚ Melvin presents the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou the game inventor. In the scenario‚ Chou invents a strategy game titled Strat. The scenario follows the events as BTT and Chou negotiate the potential distribution of Strat‚ ending with BTT declining to distribute the game. The legal issues presented are as follows:
Premium Contract
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 This scenario deals with Big Time Toymaker and a contract they were negotiating with Chou‚ the inventor of a new strategy game that BTT wanted exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. When Chou received an email with the details of what they were going to agree upon‚ he thought that was the contract and did not proceed in drawing up a contract himself. Months passed and when BTT changed management‚ they informed Chou that they were not interested in distributing
Premium Contract
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 Deborah Daka Law/421 November 24‚ 2014 Charles Hughes Big Time Toymaker “According to the Legal Environment of Business 1e Chapter 6: “1. At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract?” In this scenario‚ it stated no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. (Sean P. Melvin‚ 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
Premium Contract
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
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
HEAD Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker LaTanga Washington Law/421 January 28‚ 2013 Dr. Thomas Wilson Abstract Big Time Toymaker a developer manufacturer and distributor of board games and toys recently collaborated with and an inventor named Chou. Chou invented a strategy game called Strat‚ which requires a distributor. Chou entered into an agreement with Big Time for $25.000 and in return‚ Chou granted Big Time the exclusive negotiation rights for 90 days. During that time‚ Big Time honored
Premium Contract
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