Big Time Toymaker
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
This scenario deals with Big Time Toymaker and a contract they were negotiating with Chou, the inventor of a new strategy game that BTT wanted exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. When Chou received an email with the details of what they were going to agree upon, he thought that was the contract and did not proceed in drawing up a contract himself. Months passed and when BTT changed management, they informed Chou that they were not interested in distributing his new strategy game, Strat.
In the Big Time Toymaker Case Scenario, the 2 parties, Big Time Toymaker,which is the offeror and Chou which is the offeree were engaging in a goods or products type contract. Contracts that involved goods or products such as the strategy game that BTT was purchasing from Chou are governed by state statutory law. With the exception of Louisiana, state statutory law is based on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)(MELVIN, 2011). In addition to Big Time Toymaker and Chou engaging in a goods or products contract, they formed a bilateral contract. “A bilateral contract involves 2 promises and 2 performances (MELVIN, 2011).”
Big Time Toymaker and Chou actually engaged in a contract under the notion of mutual assent because they reached an agreement which utilized a combination of offer and acceptance (MELVIN, 2011). Since Big Time Toymaker, the offeror, made a valid offer to Chou, the offeree whom accepted the offer of $25,000 to distribute the strategy game called Strat, the 2 parties became bound by the agreement’s terms. In addition, the agreement met the other 3 requirements of consideration, capacity, and legality for the formation of a valid contract.
There are several factors that will weigh in favor of Chou such as the offeror; Big Time Toymaker had an objective intent to contract when the company made the offer to Chou. In addition, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed the language and intent of the
This scenario deals with Big Time Toymaker and a contract they were negotiating with Chou, the inventor of a new strategy game that BTT wanted exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. When Chou received an email with the details of what they were going to agree upon, he thought that was the contract and did not proceed in drawing up a contract himself. Months passed and when BTT changed management, they informed Chou that they were not interested in distributing his new strategy game, Strat.
In the Big Time Toymaker Case Scenario, the 2 parties, Big Time Toymaker,which is the offeror and Chou which is the offeree were engaging in a goods or products type contract. Contracts that involved goods or products such as the strategy game that BTT was purchasing from Chou are governed by state statutory law. With the exception of Louisiana, state statutory law is based on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)(MELVIN, 2011). In addition to Big Time Toymaker and Chou engaging in a goods or products contract, they formed a bilateral contract. “A bilateral contract involves 2 promises and 2 performances (MELVIN, 2011).”
Big Time Toymaker and Chou actually engaged in a contract under the notion of mutual assent because they reached an agreement which utilized a combination of offer and acceptance (MELVIN, 2011). Since Big Time Toymaker, the offeror, made a valid offer to Chou, the offeree whom accepted the offer of $25,000 to distribute the strategy game called Strat, the 2 parties became bound by the agreement’s terms. In addition, the agreement met the other 3 requirements of consideration, capacity, and legality for the formation of a valid contract.
There are several factors that will weigh in favor of Chou such as the offeror; Big Time Toymaker had an objective intent to contract when the company made the offer to Chou. In addition, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed the language and intent of the