Big Time Toy Maker Essay

1081 Words5 Pages
Sabrina Meryl LAW/421 June 28, 2012. Professor David Sabot University of Phoenix 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? There was no contract at any point although there was an e-mail that existed outlining the terms there were not any signed confirmation binding a contract. 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? The facts that weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract is the mere fact that BTT paid Chou $25,000 for the negotiation legal rights to his board game, which made Chou assume that there was a deal of a distribution agreement as well. This in fact could work in Chou’s favor although both parties made a verbal agreement no written agreements were signed to confirm the facts as notated within the email. Nonetheless the new administration had every right to remove Chou from the distribution of his board game because there were no written or signed contract rather than honoring a verbal contract. “The exclusive negotiation agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing” (Melvin, 2011 pg. 155). 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? In my opinion the

More about Big Time Toy Maker Essay

Open Document