Big Time Toy Maker Essay

495 WordsOct 21, 20132 Pages
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. A factor that could work against Chou is that the e-mail that was sent was not written into a contract yet and both parties have not signed it. I believe that just because there was an e-mail sent this just shows that the two parties were in talks of drafting a contract but did not get that far because of the management change within BTT. In my opinion I believe there should have been a contract signed which would help the case of Chou if he would take legal action. The statute of frauds is the law overseeing which agreements must be in writing in order to be enforceable. With that said the statute of frauds my work in favor of Chou because there was an agreement sent up within the e-mail. The issue with the e-mail is that there is now signature from any of the parties so a court may reject this because of the lack of signatures from the parties. It is possible that the court system may allow BTT to claim that the agreement is a mistake because there was a management change and the new manager may have felt that the agreement was not in the best interest of the company. 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

More about Big Time Toy Maker Essay

Open Document