Big Time Toymaker

Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker

Jordan Czarapata

December 10, 2012

LAW/421

Abstract

This intent of this paper is to go over the scenario between Big Time Toymaker and Chou over an agreement to distribute a new strategy game. Some of the areas covered are whether or not a contract existed between the two parties, objective intent, and how e-mail comes in to play with enforceability. Also we see if the statute of frauds applies to this scenario and the defenses that either party has in the case. Lastly, we look at the different remedies that can be sought out to reimburse the party harmed by the breaching of the contract

Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker

In the Theory to Practice scenario between Chou and Big Time Toymaker (BTT), the parties were trying to come to an agreement to distribute the new strategy game invented by Chou called Strat. Between meetings, emails and oral agreements, the parties tried to draft a contract for BTT to distribute the game. In the end it didn’t work out and BTT passed on the opportunity. This paper will go over the scenario and see which party would is more at fault for the deal not working out.

Existence of a Contract

Between BTT and Chou it is questionable whether there was a valid contract or not. They had an agreement made right before the 90-day deadline that was set in the original negotiation agreement, which stated that “no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing” (Melvin, 2011). The manager of BTT sent an e-mail to Chou stating the terms of the distribution agreement and requested that Chou replied back to him with a draft for contract. Melvin (2011) stated that to have an enforceable contract there needs to be mutual assent between the parties (Melvin, 2011, p. 130). Mutual asset contains an offer and acceptance from both parties, which was clearly made known through the e-mails. Now the question is if the e-mail is sufficient enough to consider the agreement to be “in writing.”...