The negotiation agreement stated exclusively that no distribution agreement was in place, unless in writing, therefore there was no official agreement between the parties. Furthermore, a Big Time Toy manager sent an e-mail to Chou stating the “Strat Deal” restating details of the oral agreement that included time frames, price, and commitments of parties involved (Melvin, 2011). There was intent to create a business deal, and the e-mail was evidence of the negotiations. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? A factor benefitting Chou is BTT paid him 25K for negotiation rights for a 90-day period.
The first fact that may be in favor of Chou is that BTT showed interest and paid him $25,000 in exchange of negotiation rights. The oral contract reached by both parties at the meeting can also be in Chou’s favor. Last, the confirmation e-mail sent to Chou by BTT can be seen as the parties’ objective intent to contract. The e-mail sent to Chou included key terms of the distribution agreement. Although there are many facts in favor of Chou there was never a signed contract which legally means that there was never a contract in existence because there was no written signed documentation.
In addition contract law defines certain circumstances that may excuse one or both parties from performing their obligation in the agreement. In the scenario Big Time Toymaker both parties never initiated a blinding distribution contract even though both parties had an oral distribution agreement, three days before the 90-day deadline. It is clearly stated in the original negotiating contract no distribution agreement will be engaged unless the contract is in writing. After both parties had a meeting, Chou was in the process in drafting the distribution contract which formalized their final agreement. Before he could finish draft, BTT managers send out an e-mail with the subject “Strat Deal” projecting the outline of the key points of the distribution agreement focusing on time frames, price and obligations of both parties.
Big Time Toymaker and Chou 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 who accepted the offer of $25,000
Before the expiration period, the parties had reached an oral agreement. The pros and cons of this simulation that gives facts for Chou regarding the terms of the contract. The some of the pros being: a follow up email from BTT with the key terms that were agreed upon; requesting a fax draft for the contact; time spent between both parties acting under contract. The cons being: negotiation agreement stated that no contract would exist unless in writing; no signatures binding the contact; the word “contract” was nowhere on the email Chou received from BTT; Chou didn’t draft the agreement until several months later when asked upon by BTT (Melvin, 2011, p.155) Electronic communications can be just effective as paper communication. This email shows an agreement by both parties on the terms of distribution agreement made in their meeting.
I believe that Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou had a contract when they had a meeting after the original agreement expired. When the meeting took place the parties reached an oral agreement to distribute the game. Then later on an e-mail was sent from a BTT manager labeled “Strat deal”. The facts can be that both parties had an agreement that BTT would pay Chou $25,000 for the exclusive rights of the game for a 90 day period. Another fact can be the oral agreement that was discussed in the meeting the two parties had along with the e-mail that was sent from a BTT manager stating the agreement in the e-mail.
No one made Betty drive that length for that car. She could have gone to another dealership closer to where she lives or that has a similar truck to what Betty was looking for. Now the dealer has a responsibility to sell to its customers before anyone else. The fact that Rally Motors sold an advertised vehicle to an employee was ethically wrong, but the dealer broke no laws by doing so. When Tony said over the phone “three thousand dollars firm,” explain whether or not he was making an offer that, if accepted, would bind the dealership in contract.
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Denise Fogel LAW 421 June 3, 2013 Chontele McIntyre Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? After reviewing the scenario, it is evident that the two parties concerned never had a contract. In the scenario, the parties came to an agreement just three days ahead of the conclusion of the 90-day term set in the original negotiation offer (Melvin, 2011). The original negotiation offer states there would be no distribution agreement until it was in writing (Melvin, 2011). BTT’s manager posted an e-mail to Chou describing the conditions of a distribution contract; however, this does not make the email an agreement until the parties both sign it.
Consideration is the price paid to the other party of a binding agreement. Furthermore, did e-mail have any impact on the oral distribution reached between Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou, were there ever a legal contract established between BTT and Chou? Contract Establishment BTT and Chou reached an oral distribution agreement at a business meeting. BTT manager sent Chou an e-mail and repeated the terms of the distribution agreement. The e-mail never mentioned the word “contract,” it did not have too because the four elements of contract formation were not present.
The beta for Boston Beer Company cannot be calculated as it has not been listed before. The pure play method cannot be used because their competitors have only recently listed and there are no historical betas for them yet. The beta for Boston Beer has hence been arbitrarily calculated by taking Anheuser-Busch’s beta of 1 and incorporating greater risk. 4. The market risk premium was not given in the case study and has been taken as the spread between stock and bond annual returns over the period 1926 – 1997 to be 7.2% 5.