I found that the only actual agreement between the two parties was at the very beginning. The agreement that BTT paid $25,000 to Chou for exclusive negotiation rights ended after the 90-day period. After this there was no actual contract. There was talk of a contract to be drafted and an email but neither was an actual contact. Since there were no signatures from both parties, there was no legally binding contract present.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? I would have to say that the facts weigh in favor of Chou in the sense that BTT showed big interest by the initial $25,000 agreement for the negotiation rights. Next, the oral agreement that was met between the two parties. Finally, the follow-up email sent to Chou which entailed what would be included in a contract. Although there may have been intent to contract, without the actual signed contract it doesn’t mean anything.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
1- No, the communication by email had no impact on my analysis. The fact still remained that there was no signed contract between the two parties. 2- Yes & No, I could see where Chou could think the email sent by the BTT manager showed intent to contract; however, if he paid attention at the very beginning he would have recalled that without a signed contract there was no agreement past the 90 days.
4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? One of the types of contracts enforceable under the statute of frauds includes the sale of items valued at $500 or more. The original agreement between BTT and Chou was valued at $25,000 which would have fallen under the statute of fraud. However, there was no written contract signed by both parties. There were the emails sent between the two parties but...