Law/421

Toymaker's Obligation

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

A contract was entered when Chou agreed to the negotiation contract and BTT paid him the $25,000.00 for exclusive rights over a 90-day period (Melvin, 2011). When BTT offered the $25,000.00 for exclusive negotiation rights and Chou agreed the two parties entered an oral bilateral contract.

What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?

There are many facts that are weighing in Chou’s favor in terms of the parties’ objective. Chou has an email from BTT management re-addressing the terms from the oral agreement between the two parties. In the terms is outlines the obligations of both parties and finishes with the statement, “all terms had been agreed upon” (Melvin, The legal environment of business: A managerial approach: Theory to practice, 2011, p. 155). When Chou failed to draft a written contract, due to misunderstanding, BTT faxed over a request for contract and Chou complied immediately and submitted the contract. The chain of events and evidence proves the two parties were putting their oral agreement into a written agreement.

Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?

Yes, knowing that the bulk of the agreement was done through e-mail did have an impact on my decision in questions 1 and 2. The Wisconsin Supreme Court case of KASTEN v. DORAL DENTAL USA LLC concluded that drafts and emails that are not private communication done on the companies behalf are formal company records and can be used as legal evidence (Find Law, 2007).

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

The statute of frauds does not play a role in the contract, oral or written, between Chou and BTT. The agreement between the two parties was distribution of a good. Statute of frauds covers the sell or transfer of land, contracts that...