Law 421

Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker

Thomas Sanford

Bus/421

December 17, 2012

Robert Kinsella/ UOPX Faculty

Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker

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

There was no official written contract because the scenario states 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’ objectives intent to contract?

Facts in Chous’ favor:

The upfront payment of $25,000.00

The email communications describing details.

Facts not in Chous’ favor:

No written contract

90 day period had expired

New management at Big Time Toymaker

Assumption that the email was considered a contract.

(3) your analysis in questions 1 & 2 above?

Somewhat because there were discussions about a contract and terms, plus a form of writing even though it did not say it was a contract per say.

(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, because it has to be in the form of a written contract. Considering the email may have been a draft of a contract, it did not contain the signatures of both or either party; therefore it is not deemed 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?

There was no contract to start with so the answer would be “No.” Chou could say there was a mistake on his end with the email content as he mistook it for a contract. BTT could claim that the 90 day period had expired and that the new manager took over after that period ended.

(6) Assuming, arquendo, that this email does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?

Considering we live in an age of electronic media, if the email was considered to be an agreement, the consideration would be that they had...