Big Time Toymaker
The theory to practice scenario between Big Time Toymaker and Chou in my opinion entered into a contract in two separate occasions. The first time was the verbal agreement Big Time Toymaker (BTT) made with Chou three days before the 90 day period ended and then there was the email Chou received that gave him the terms, time frame, price and obligations; at this point Chou felt that there was an actual contract. The one fact that could help Chou in this case is that he has an email to prove that there was some sort of intent there from BTT regarding a contract. On the other hand the one thing that may count against Chou is that he never received anything in writing, which would be the actual contract. The fact that both parties were communicating by email does impact my analysis. Companies send emails to one another all the time discussing terms and agreements and the fact that they had spoken and made a prior agreement verbally counts as the initial agreement and the email would be follow up. A contract consists of all parties that are involved to have a signature and if they verbal agreement would not have taken place before the email then my decision would be different. I feel that Chou has the right to feel that he was entering into a contract with BTT but should have followed up for a written contract. The role of fraud has played a role in this scenario according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the sale of goods for more than $500.00 and any lease transaction for goods of $1000.00 or more (Melvin,2011). In this scenario Chou received $25,000.00 in exchange for the negotiation rights for 90 days from BTT. This is not a mistake under the doctrine of mistake because in order for this to take place there would need to be a unilateral mistake made in the contract and there was not one and neither was there an actual written contract. If there was an actual contract there could have been laws applied towards strict liability as well. For...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document