Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Did the parties have a contract? If there was a contract between Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou it was a bilateral contract that was binding when BTT (offeror) paid Chou (offeree) $25K in exchange for limited negotiation privileges for a 90-day period. Consequently‚ BTT bought the rights to negotiate the distribution agreements for Chou’s board game. A bilateral contract is an agreement of two promises and two performances. The
Premium Contract
Week Four Individual Case Scenario LAW/421 March 14‚ 2013 Week Four Individual Case Scenario By studying the situation‚ I don’t believe the 2 sides concerned ever had a deal. In the situation‚ the sides reached a deal just 3 days ahead of the conclusion of a 90-day time frame set in the initial negotiation deal. In the initial negotiation deal‚ it says that there would be no distribution agreement until it was on paper. As soon as the BTT manager posted the e-mail to Chou‚ he described
Premium Contract
if there is no signature then there was no 90 days. 4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? The one type of item that is accused by the potential fraud is the 500 $ sale item. The main original part of agreement between the two was the $25‚000 but that would have been proven fraud in the end. With the emails being send by both of them and no names with no signatures they would have had nothing out of the whole case. 5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine
Premium Contract E-mail
partnership debts | Limited partners are prohibited by law from participating in management‚ can lose more than their investments‚ and get less than the general partners of unusually high profits | One partner can transfer a profit interest to an external party‚ but not control. | The general partners usually receive a management fee and share in profits. | There is only one level of taxation. General partnership
Premium Corporation Types of companies Types of business entity
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Jennifer Ferrante LAW/421 – Contemporary Business Law Date August 18‚ 2013 Instructor Name Jane Schneider Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker In week four’s theory practice‚ we reviewed the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker vs Chou in regards to determining the validity of a contract. As we’ve reviewed‚ an agreement or mutual assent is of course essential to a valid contract but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning
Premium
In this document of LAW 421 Week 4 Big Time Toymaker you will find the next information: Read the “Theory to Practice” section at the end of Ch. 6 of the text. Answer Questions 1 through 6 based on the scenario in the “Theory to Practice” section‚ and complete the following in your response: At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract? What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Does the
Premium Contract Strategy Answer
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract? Chou and BTT reach the point of having a contract when they agree to all terms. In the email send by BTT covering the obligations of the parties and the terms of the agreement‚ BTT showed objective intent. According to Melvin‚” Objective intent Requirement for an offer to have legal effect necessitating that generally‚ the offer or must have a serious intention to become
Premium Contract Common law Contract law
Case Scenario: Big Time Toy Market LAW/421 Tuesday November 12th‚ 2013 Case scenario: Big Time Toymaker Read the “Theory to Practice” section at the end of Ch. 6 of the text. Answer Questions 1 through 6 based on the scenario in the “Theory to Practice” section‚ and complete the following in your response: At the end of the scenario‚ BTT states that it is not interested in distributing Chou’s new strategy game‚ Strat. Assuming BTT and Chou have a contract‚ and BTT has breached the contract
Premium Contract
Role and Functions of Law Paper University of Phoenix/Axia Law/421 – Contemporary Business Law Role and Functions of Law Paper The word law is defined as a system of principles and regulations of ethics and rules in order to keep people and also things in line‚ a set of rules of conduct. There are many functions of law in business and in society. Without the functions of laws many companies‚ etc. could and would not survive. Law is very valuable within businesses
Premium Law
University of Phoenix Material BUGusa‚ Inc.‚ Worksheet Use the scenarios in the Bugusa‚ Inc.‚ link located on the student website to answer the following questions. Scenario: WIRETIME‚ Inc.‚ Advertisement Has WIRETIME‚ Inc.‚ committed any torts? If so‚ explain. Wiretime‚ Inc.’s ad in the well-known industry magazine stated that BUGusa‚ Inc. electronic recording devices are low quality and not reliable for more than a month (University of Phoenix‚ 2013). This tort is defamation since
Premium Tort Strict liability Negligence