Big Time Toymaker Case Study
Big Time Toymaker Scenario
Angela Brinnen
LAW 421
August 4, 2014
Barry Preston
Big Time Toymaker Scenario
At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
After carefully reviewing all of the information about the case of Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou, I have found that there were two different contracts in place. In the text it describes a contract as “a promise or set of promises enforceable by law” (Melvin, 2014), these contracts can be oral or written. The first contract in place is a bilateral contract, this contract is clearly defined in the practice theory when Big Time Toymakers offers Chou $25,000 in exchange for “exclusive negation for a 90-day period" (Melvin, 2014, p.155) to which Chou accepted. The second part …show more content…
Just because the business world moves faster doesn 't mean that laws haven 't changed to conform to honor the ability of technology or those that utilize it to make business transactions faster. It just goes to show that even big businesses are accountable for deals that are made with the use of it. In this case, Big Time Toymakers and Chou have a binding and enforceable contract.
What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? The statue of frauds plays a key role this case as it relates to more than $500 worth of the sale of Chou 's game "Strat". "Under the Uniform Commercial Code 's "statute of frauds applies to any contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more, and any lease transaction for goods amounting to $1,000 or more" (Melvin, 2014). This case is very similar to another that I read in the text that validates a contract that was sent via e-mail. The amount of games is unclear, but looking at the size of Big Time Toymaker 's operation it is clear that the statute of frauds is one avenue of enforceability.
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
Angela Brinnen
LAW 421
August 4, 2014
Barry Preston
Big Time Toymaker Scenario
At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
After carefully reviewing all of the information about the case of Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou, I have found that there were two different contracts in place. In the text it describes a contract as “a promise or set of promises enforceable by law” (Melvin, 2014), these contracts can be oral or written. The first contract in place is a bilateral contract, this contract is clearly defined in the practice theory when Big Time Toymakers offers Chou $25,000 in exchange for “exclusive negation for a 90-day period" (Melvin, 2014, p.155) to which Chou accepted. The second part …show more content…
Just because the business world moves faster doesn 't mean that laws haven 't changed to conform to honor the ability of technology or those that utilize it to make business transactions faster. It just goes to show that even big businesses are accountable for deals that are made with the use of it. In this case, Big Time Toymakers and Chou have a binding and enforceable contract.
What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? The statue of frauds plays a key role this case as it relates to more than $500 worth of the sale of Chou 's game "Strat". "Under the Uniform Commercial Code 's "statute of frauds applies to any contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more, and any lease transaction for goods amounting to $1,000 or more" (Melvin, 2014). This case is very similar to another that I read in the text that validates a contract that was sent via e-mail. The amount of games is unclear, but looking at the size of Big Time Toymaker 's operation it is clear that the statute of frauds is one avenue of enforceability.
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