Bigtyme Toymaker

Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker

LAW 421

March 5, 2015

Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker

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

A contract is defined as an agreement that is recognized and enforceable by a court of law. There are several different types of contracts. In this particular case the company, Big Time Toy Maker and Chou, the inventor of the game, Strat made an oral agreement. The agreement was for Big Time Toy Maker to pay him $25,000 for exclusive negotiation rights for 90 days. Once the parties agree on the terms and accepted those terms. They did state that there was not contract regarding distribution until it was placed in writing. The Uniform Commercial Code states that there must be a written contract if there is a sale of goods exceeding $500. Because there was no distribution deal in place or sale of goods, there was statute of frauds.

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

One of the major factors that weigh in Chou’s favor is that they made an oral agreement regarding the distribution deal 3 days prior to the end of the 90 day contract. That could also hurt Chou because the distribution deal would have exceeded $500 and would need to be in writing. There was an email identifying that terms of the deal but it would not be considered a contract because there was no signatures and it was not identified as an actual contract. The Big Time Toy Maker then asked for Chou to send him a draft of the contract, which would indicate that no formal contract was in place.

Does the fact that the parties were communicating by email have impact on you analysis?

The fact that both parties were communicating via email does not impact my analysis. The email communication did not serve as a written contract. It just identifies the terms of deal that were going to be placed in the written contract. Big Time Toymaker did agree to the terms via email but there was not a...