week 2
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
Subsequent to reading the scenario, I discovered that there was a contract in place when BTT sent an email to Chau talking about the original terms of agreement. BTT sent Chou an e-mail where the topic line read “Strat Deal.” This email reiterated the main elements of the agreement. The elements included fees, the rights and responsibilities of both parties, and the length of time the project should be done.” This is when the contract became legal binding.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
Both BTT and Chau vocally consented to the deal. A realistic person would have expected the deal was on its way to go through because BTT paid Chau 25K for negotiation rights for a 90 day period. At this point there was an enforceable agreement between Chau and BTT.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in
Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
According to USS Rule 2-204, “A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including offer and acceptance, conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract, the interaction of electronic agents, and the interaction of an electronic agent and an individual.” This means to me that email was the platform used to support the deal making it binding.
4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
BTT sent Chau an email memo within the ninety day period confirming the deal, so the statute of frauds has been satisfied and BTT cannot use this as a defense to formation because The Statute of Frauds states that in a contract for the sale of goods over five hundred dollars, the agreement must be in writing.
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?
Subsequent to reading the scenario, I discovered that there was a contract in place when BTT sent an email to Chau talking about the original terms of agreement. BTT sent Chou an e-mail where the topic line read “Strat Deal.” This email reiterated the main elements of the agreement. The elements included fees, the rights and responsibilities of both parties, and the length of time the project should be done.” This is when the contract became legal binding.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
Both BTT and Chau vocally consented to the deal. A realistic person would have expected the deal was on its way to go through because BTT paid Chau 25K for negotiation rights for a 90 day period. At this point there was an enforceable agreement between Chau and BTT.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in
Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
According to USS Rule 2-204, “A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including offer and acceptance, conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract, the interaction of electronic agents, and the interaction of an electronic agent and an individual.” This means to me that email was the platform used to support the deal making it binding.
4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
BTT sent Chau an email memo within the ninety day period confirming the deal, so the statute of frauds has been satisfied and BTT cannot use this as a defense to formation because The Statute of Frauds states that in a contract for the sale of goods over five hundred dollars, the agreement must be in writing.
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?