Business Law

Negotiation Rights

Law/421

Negation Rights

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

If I am reading correctly I see that an agreement was made for a 90 day negotiation period and 3 days prior to the expiration of that agreement an email outline what I also would take into consideration to be a formal written contract even though sent by email.

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

That the email is viable and has as much holding as a formal contract and verbal agreement stating that written was fine. If that email is printed signed and faxed back or emailed it holds ground it’s written in a document form.

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

There shouldn’t be any negative impact on an email in today’s world of technology every one signs via email or printed emails via fax return.

Side note: I am currently refinancing a car loan that was sold off and my contracts were emailed to me and I printed dated and signed and sent back valid for financing.

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

I believe when the BTT asked for the response of the fax and then denied any further transactions with them after the fact that a management change was made

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?

I think it would fall under the doctrine of mistake; one would be that Chou offered an agreement then a revision email and then fax back initially there was communication but lacked a hard copy of a contract and not negotiation. I still stand firm on the belief that the email is valid but I also view from each end of the spectrum.

6. Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports...