Case Scenario:Big Time Toys
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
Tabitha Szoltysik
LAW/421
September 22, 2014
Phillip Quintana
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
I think the parties 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 Strat Deal. In that email it covered all the information they went over in a meeting, including time frame, price, as well as the obligations for both parties. This was also done within the 90-days time frame which would make this legal binding.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
Yes, because with both BTT and Chou communicating through email that is showing that both parties are recognizing they have an agreement of some sort to continue moving forward.
4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
Statute of frauds play a part in this contract because as stated in the text; “ Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the statute of frauds applies to any contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more, and any lease transaction for goods amounting to $1,000 or more” (Melvin, 2011, p 151). BTT exchanged $25,000 for exclusive negotiation rights for 90-days for Chou’s game Strat, but the agreement was conversed and not suitably carried out as established upon.
5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the
Tabitha Szoltysik
LAW/421
September 22, 2014
Phillip Quintana
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
I think the parties 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 Strat Deal. In that email it covered all the information they went over in a meeting, including time frame, price, as well as the obligations for both parties. This was also done within the 90-days time frame which would make this legal binding.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
Yes, because with both BTT and Chou communicating through email that is showing that both parties are recognizing they have an agreement of some sort to continue moving forward.
4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
Statute of frauds play a part in this contract because as stated in the text; “ Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the statute of frauds applies to any contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more, and any lease transaction for goods amounting to $1,000 or more” (Melvin, 2011, p 151). BTT exchanged $25,000 for exclusive negotiation rights for 90-days for Chou’s game Strat, but the agreement was conversed and not suitably carried out as established upon.
5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the