Submitted by: Submitted by caringwateka
Views: 2162
Words: 453
Pages: 2
Category: Business and Industry
Date Submitted: 12/09/2012 05:31 PM
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
LAW/421: Contemporary Business Law
University of Phoenix
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
I do not believe the parties ever had a contract. The scenario stated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to
contract?
Facts in favor of Chou -
-The $25,000 payment
-The e-mail
Facts against Chou -
-No contract
-90-day period was up
-New management
-False assumption that the e-mail was a contract
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 it does because e-mail is a form of writing but it did not say contract.
4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
The statute of fraud states that there was no contract in this case. This is so because it has to be a written contract. Even if the email was a contract draft it did not contain the signature of both parties therefore, it is not a contract.
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?
No because there was never a contract. Chou could however say that there was a mistake on his end with whole email ordeal that he mistook for a contract. BTT could say the 90 day period was up. They could also state that The new manager came in after the contract period ended.
6. Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?
-We live in a electronic time
-If the e-mail did constitute an agreement the consideration would be that they have been going back and forth about this agreement.
-Money has been issued
-Both parties failed to adhere to...