Big Time Toy Maker

Big Time Toymaker

1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?

The scenario of Big Time Toymaker (BTT) vs. Chou implies that there is a contract at the beginning, stating that the parties had a contract when BTT and Chou entered into an agreement and BTT offered to pay Chou $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiating 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?

An agreement was made stating that BTT had exclusive negotiating rights for a 90-day period. The agreement was put into writing, via email, stating all the agreed upon terms, after oral modifications had been made. There was a mutual assent, an offer made by BTT and acceptance of the offer made by Chou, the offer is supported by the consideration, and the subject matter of the contract has legality and is consistent with public policy, making the contract 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)?

The fact that the parties communicated by email does have an impact on the analysis, and reiterates that there is a contract in place, in writing. The only concern is that there are no signatures to confirm agreement of all the parties involved.

4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?

The statute of frauds states that any sales contract for goods with a total value of $500 or more must be in writing, therefore, the case may be in favor of BTT, since there was no written contract detailing the contract. On the other hand, the original agreement was that Chou would be paid $25,000 in exchange for negotiating rights, which is not the actual sale of the goods.

5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided?

BTT could not avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake because...