The initial negotiation deal states that there would not be any distribution agreement/contracts if it was not in writing and signed by both parties. Although the BTT manager did post an email to Chou outlining the terms and conditions of a distribution contract it does not officially confirm an agreement because neither party signed the document to seal a contract agreement as was required. Without any signatures of either parties or legally binding drafts it was previously agreed upon by both parties that no agreement or contracts exist. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
Although an oral agreement was reached at the meeting between the two, there was a negotiation agreement stating exclusively that no distribution agreement was in place, unless in writing, and therefore there was no official agreement between the parties (Melvin, 2011). This would work against Chou in that there was no written agreement with the distribution rights, or written statement regarding the 90-day negotiations period. This could hurt Chou because a court could
I think the best defense for BTT would be that there is no contract because either parties did not sign anything, just that they were in talks of a possible contract. If we look at the three
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.
The most common motives usually involved in financial fraud are greed and financial hardship. However, without opportunity the fraud would not take place. This is why it is important to have internal policies and controls in place for deterring opportunity (Wells, 2001). It is also vital to detect fraud; once an individual has detected fraudulent activity it is easier to see where controls can be placed to deter the activity. Who commits Fraud?
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. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1
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.
The e-mail never mentioned the word “contract,” it did not have too because the four elements of contract formation were not present. The exclusive negotiation agreement stipulated that no distribution contract will exist unless it was in writing. Because of this clause no contract could be established unless in writing. What Facts may Weight in Favor of or against Chou The following facts may weight against Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract. The exclusive negotiation agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing.
* Mitchell’s opinion is that Devilly and Cotton display a lack of knowledge within the text of CISM because no reference to this literature is stated by the authors. Mitchell believes that if Devilly and Cotton would have at least read any publications of CISM there would not have been a need for this perplexing and erroneous article. Mitchell also believes that seven- step
First, they say that it was no intention that brings to the legally binding agreement. But the court held that there was legal intention because it was a commercial transaction and intention was presumed. Another argue by the company said that the ad was just an invitation to treat (not a contract). But the court held that a newspaper advertisement was generally offers to treat, which in other word could be said specifically as an offer. Then, the company also argue that Mrs. Carlill did not make an acceptance or agreement to the offer, as one of a contract element.