Law 421 Case Scenario

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 514
  • Published : July 8, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
Case Scenario
LAW 421: Contemporary Business Law
July 1, 2012

1. The contract formed at the meeting just before the 90-day expiration period but the exclusive negotiation agreement stated that a distribution contract did not exist unless it were in writing. The agreement formed at the meeting was an oral agreement. However, because the e-mail that was sent to Chou by the BTT manager contained the key terms of the distribution agreement (price, time frames, and obligations of both parties) the e-mail met the requirements of a contract. 2. The first point in favor of the intent of contract was the initial payment from BTT to Chou in exchange for the exclusive negotiation rights. The second would be the meeting where the oral agreement had taken place. The third point in Chou’s favor would be the email sent by an BTT manager stating the terms of the distribution agreement. The only thing not in Chou’s favor is that both parties did not specifically agree to the terms on a contract signed by both parties. However, there was intent to contract so there is also intent to accept. 3. The parties were not only communicating by email so it does not have an impact on the analysis. The parties had a physical meeting where they made the oral agreement. The e-mail met the requirements of a contract and therefore should not matter that it was an e-mail. 4. “The most common types of contracts that fall under the statute of fraud are contracts involving the sale or transfer of land, contracts to answer for the debt or duty of another, contracts that cannot be completed in a year, and certain contracts for the sale of goods under the UCC ,“("The Statute of Frauds and Contract Law", 2011). From the information in this case scenario, it seems like Chou is agreeing to a sale of service not a sale of goods. Therefore, the statute of frauds would not apply. 5. The doctrine of mistake would not apply either because there was no unilateral mistake in the contract....
tracking img