Big Time Toymaker
Big Time Toymaker
Carlos Medrano
LAW/421
November 19, 2014
Alice King
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. Which included full details of prices, time frames and obligations of both parties.
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 Chou include the email that was sent to him from the BTT manager as well as the fax that he sent. Even though the email and the fax were not responded to, they were not denied. Another fact is the $25,000.00 paid in exchange for exclusive negations rights.
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 a huge 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 way either. Also, based on the past behavior, it seems like this is how the two typically 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; BTT sent Chou an email stating the details of the distribution.
5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain.
Carlos Medrano
LAW/421
November 19, 2014
Alice King
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. Which included full details of prices, time frames and obligations of both parties.
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 Chou include the email that was sent to him from the BTT manager as well as the fax that he sent. Even though the email and the fax were not responded to, they were not denied. Another fact is the $25,000.00 paid in exchange for exclusive negations rights.
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 a huge 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 way either. Also, based on the past behavior, it seems like this is how the two typically 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; BTT sent Chou an email stating the details of the distribution.
5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain.