April 23, 2012
Professor Douglas Edmunds
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
The parties had a contract when they spoke of and agreed on the deal that was later followed up by a BTT manager via email.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
The facts that weigh in favor of chow include the email that was sent to him from the BTT manager as well as the fax that he sent. Although neither transmission was responded to, they were not denied.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
Yes, the fact that the parties were communicating by email does have an impact on my analysis. The written communication and the way that it was responded to makes an enormous impact on the decision making process. Had the emails been responded to it would have made the outcome different. For example, when the initial email was sent to Chou by the BTT manager and not responded to this gave the impression that he accepted the terms of what the email entailed. The same fits for the fax that was sent by Chou that included the distribution agreement contract. Although it was not responded to, it was not rejected in any fashion either. And, based on the past pattern of behavior this is how the two seemingly do business.
4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
The stature of frauds plays a major role. Per the statute some terms must be in writing to be enforceable. In this case, they are. They are in writing via email and via fax.
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?
No, BTT could not avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake. For this to stand there has to be an erroneous belief that is not in...