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 the conditions of a distribution contract; however it doesn't make the email an agreement as neither side inked it. Just a verbal deal was reached. With no legally binding draft and the signature of both sides present, no agreement existed.
BTT had paid out Chou $25,000 for the unique negotiation legal rights to his board game, and this element would cause Chou to think they were interested in arriving at a deal on a distribution agreement. It is a fact which would weigh in support of Chou. But, both sides just made a verbal deal, and not a written agreement to demonstrate this fact. As the agreement wasn't drawn up during the initial 90-day interval, the new administration wasn't responsible to distribute the board game, and hence, had every reason to move Chou away rather than honoring the verbal agreement.
The truth that both sides were interacting by email didn't have an effect on my research into the case. E-mail is actually a type of electronic interaction, not a penned and signed agreement. While both sides might have conveyed their intention and conditions of the agreement, they never printed and inked any type of a written deal. This element makes all the variation with regards to enforceable agreements. What BTT and a Chou had wasn't a binding or enforceable agreement.
Under the UCC, the statue of scam relates to an agreement for the sales of items more than $500. The discussions between BTT and Chou were really more than $500; therefore the statues of