Big Time Toymaker: Questions 
Big Time Toymaker
LAW/421
May 20, 2014
Aileen S. Azadian
Question 1 At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
Answer: Big Time Toymaker and Chou had an oral contract. In a meeting that included Big Time Toymaker and Chou an agreement was reached. Additionally, an e-mail was sent by Big Time Toymaker to Chou that confirmed the terms of the agreement that were discussed during the meeting.
Question 2
What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
Answer: There are three facts that are in favor of Chou. The first fact is, three days prior to the end of the 90 day exclusive negotiation rights agreement, Both parties came to an oral agreement. Secondly, an email from Big Time Toymaker was sent to Chou that outlined what was discussed at the meeting. Thirdly, Big Time Toymaker sent Chou a fax asking him to send a draft distribution contract. There is one fact that weighs against Chao. Big Time Toymaker and Chao never signed an actual contract.
Question 3
Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
Answer: Yes, the fact that they communicated via email does have bearing on my analysis. By sending the email to Chou Big Time Toymaker acknowledged that they meeting occurred and there are terms that were agreed to. Additionally, email is widely accepted in the business world as a communication method; it is actually the preferred method of communication for many organizations.
Question 4
What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
Answer: Fraud does not play a role in this because it is a contract for distribution rights. The Statute for fraud is only valid when it is a contract for goods.
Question 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?
Answer: No,
LAW/421
May 20, 2014
Aileen S. Azadian
Question 1 At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
Answer: Big Time Toymaker and Chou had an oral contract. In a meeting that included Big Time Toymaker and Chou an agreement was reached. Additionally, an e-mail was sent by Big Time Toymaker to Chou that confirmed the terms of the agreement that were discussed during the meeting.
Question 2
What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
Answer: There are three facts that are in favor of Chou. The first fact is, three days prior to the end of the 90 day exclusive negotiation rights agreement, Both parties came to an oral agreement. Secondly, an email from Big Time Toymaker was sent to Chou that outlined what was discussed at the meeting. Thirdly, Big Time Toymaker sent Chou a fax asking him to send a draft distribution contract. There is one fact that weighs against Chao. Big Time Toymaker and Chao never signed an actual contract.
Question 3
Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
Answer: Yes, the fact that they communicated via email does have bearing on my analysis. By sending the email to Chou Big Time Toymaker acknowledged that they meeting occurred and there are terms that were agreed to. Additionally, email is widely accepted in the business world as a communication method; it is actually the preferred method of communication for many organizations.
Question 4
What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
Answer: Fraud does not play a role in this because it is a contract for distribution rights. The Statute for fraud is only valid when it is a contract for goods.
Question 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?
Answer: No,