Big Time Toymaker Case Scenario LAW/421 1. At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract? I do not think the two parties involved ever had a contract. In the scenario‚ the parties reached an agreement only three days before the end of a 90-day deadline set in the original negotiation contract. In the original negotiation contract‚ it states that there would be no distribution contract unless it was in writing. When the BTT manager sent the e-mail to Chou‚ he mentioned the terms
Premium
HEAD Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker LaTanga Washington Law/421 January 28‚ 2013 Dr. Thomas Wilson Abstract Big Time Toymaker a developer manufacturer and distributor of board games and toys recently collaborated with and an inventor named Chou. Chou invented a strategy game called Strat‚ which requires a distributor. Chou entered into an agreement with Big Time for $25.000 and in return‚ Chou granted Big Time the exclusive negotiation rights for 90 days. During that time‚ Big Time honored
Premium Contract
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Based on the Case Scenario: Theory to Practice scenario involving Big Time Toymaker (BTT)‚ a company that develops‚ manufactures‚ and distributes board games and other toys globally‚ entered into an agreement with Chou‚ an independent inventor of a new strategy game he name Strat‚ to distribute this new game. However‚ over more than a 90-day period‚ BTT reneged on the agreement and was in breach of contract stating BTT were no longer interested in distributing Chou’s
Premium
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
Premium Contract Contract law Gentlemen's agreement
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
Premium Contract Contract law Common law
Big Time Toymaker Helen Latscha Elizabeth Martin John Hong David Cho LAW/421 Week 4 November 19‚ 2014 Dr. Mark Pugatch BS‚ MBA‚ JD Big Time Toymaker According to Melvin‚ 2011 “an agreement may result in a binding contract‚ whether it is an oral or written agreement between parties”. Big Time Toymaker (BTT) had shown interest in the new strategy game developed by Chou‚ called Strat. There were oral agreements for exclusive distribution rights‚ but had stipulations that it must be in writing. There
Premium Contract Common law Contract law
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Big Time Toymaker (BTT) develops‚ manufactures‚ and distributes board games and other toys in North America‚ Chou is the inventor of a new strategy game he calls Strat. BTT had an interest in distributing Strat and entered into an agreement with Chou‚ offering him $25‚000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. This agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing
Premium
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
death or selling of the business. Even if the spouse or other person is given rights to operate the business after the owners’ death‚ a new sole proprietorship has legally been started. | Owners of sole proprietorships are going to have a difficult time acquiring capital for the business. The personal liability of a sole proprietorship makes investors leery because of the personal debt liability. | Taxation of a sole proprietorship is figured on the owners personal taxes. The owner is responsible
Premium Corporation Types of companies Types of business entity
Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 May 20‚ 2014 Aileen S. Azadian Question 1 At what point‚ if ever‚ did the parties have a contract? Answer: Big Time Toymaker and Chou had an oral contract. In a meeting that included Big Time Toymaker and Chou an agreement was reached. Additionally‚ an e-mail was sent by Big Time Toymaker to Chou that confirmed the terms of the agreement that were discussed during the meeting. Question 2 What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’
Premium Contract Communication