Big Time Toymaker

491 Words2 Pages
Big Time Toymaker 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 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 of a distribution agreement, but it does not make the e-mail a contract, as neither party signed it. Only an oral agreement was reached. Without a legally binding draft and the signature of both parties present, a contract did not exist so nothing can be. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? Under the UCC, the statute of fraud applies to a contract for the sales of goods in excess of $500. The negotiations between BTT and Chou were in excess of $500, so the statutes of fraud would apply in this situation. Under UCC laws, particularly under common law contracts, the statute of fraud applies when a contract cannot be fulfilled within one year. Under these stipulations, the statute would apply. The element required to meet this stipulation is the signature of the party involved in the contract. Some courts have ruled that an email can pass as a signed writing as long as the name of the party is included at the end of the email. There is no information to verify if Chou ever responded to the email stating he agreed with the terms or whether his name was written in the email. Assuming, arguendo, that the e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement? The fact that BTT gave a check for $25,000 for the exclusive negotiating rights shows that BTT intended to reach a contract with Chou. In addition, the two parties also reached an oral agreement, but

More about Big Time Toymaker

Open Document