Big Time Toymaker Essay
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 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 representative was sent to Chou with the specifics of the agreement, which stated specific terms, requesting Chou to send a draft of the contract, as a form of confirmation. Terms that may have weighed against Chou was that there were no signatures to confirm the agreement.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? …show more content…
In the case with BTT and Chou, where the breach can be considered material, as it could affect Chou’s future profits, it can be considered a total breach, and the nonbreaching party will be entitled to either suspend performance or to be discharged from their obligations completely. The party that suffered the breach is also entitled to sue the breaching party in an attempt to recover money damages. Money damage awards are one of the ways in which the law provides a method to compensate the nonbreaching party for losses suffered. These methods are known as
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 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 representative was sent to Chou with the specifics of the agreement, which stated specific terms, requesting Chou to send a draft of the contract, as a form of confirmation. Terms that may have weighed against Chou was that there were no signatures to confirm the agreement.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? …show more content…
In the case with BTT and Chou, where the breach can be considered material, as it could affect Chou’s future profits, it can be considered a total breach, and the nonbreaching party will be entitled to either suspend performance or to be discharged from their obligations completely. The party that suffered the breach is also entitled to sue the breaching party in an attempt to recover money damages. Money damage awards are one of the ways in which the law provides a method to compensate the nonbreaching party for losses suffered. These methods are known as