Theory to Practice

Theory to Practice

LAW421

April 23, 2012

Theory to Practice

Big Time Toymaker and Chou distribution scenario Questions 1 through 6

1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have an agreement?

The exclusive negotiations agreement stated that there would be no distribution agreement unless it exists in writing. An email sent to Chou by a BTT manager covered the terms of the distribution agreement. The email stated that all terms had been agreed upon. This manager was representing the BTT Company and his email is in an electronic form of writing. When this email was sent that was the point at which these two parties had a valid agreement.

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

In order for an offer to have legal effect, the offeror must have an objective intent to contract when making the offer. The offeror must have a serious intention to become bound by the offer and the terms of the offer must be reasonably certain [ (Melvin, 2011) ]. The BTT manager was serious with the offer and terms he extended to Chou and the medium in which he presented it is an acceptable method.

3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by email have an impact on your analysis in Question 1 and 2 (above)?

The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (EUTA) established that a contract may not be denied legal affect solely because it is in electronic form. All the terms and conditions of the agreement were stated in the email. BTT later requested a fax (another electronic medium) that Chou sends a draft of the distribution agreement contract. This further communication proves to me that BTT was serious in their intent to conduct business with Chou. Electronic communication is an efficient form of conducting business and has been proven to be legally valid. My analysis does not change because of the method of communication.

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