Big Toy Maker/ Law 421 Essay

848 WordsJan 17, 20154 Pages
Big Time Toymaker 1. BTT and Chou had a contract when the verbally agreed to the terms. Later when BTT wrote an email specifically discussing the terms that were reached during the phone conversation. Lastly, when Chou responded to the fax that was sent over from BTT, this would have also been considered as a contract between the two companies. 2. Chou has several facts that way in his favor. Chou and BTT reached several agreements for their contact. They came to a verbal agreement, written agreement via email then a faxed contract that was also written. Chou has a case against BTT under an expressed contract and/or and implied contract. 3. Yes, the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail impacted the answers to questions one and two by showing a written contract was produced in the e-mail by BTT. The very first agreement with Chou and BTT made it clear that no exclusive negotiation agreement could exist unless it was in writing. The e-mail was in writing and showed all terms of the agreed upon contract between the two parties. However, the contract was not signed and under the statue of frauds BTT would not be held liable. 4. The statue of frauds requires written contracts to be drawn up and signed by BTT in order for Chou to legally hold BTT liable for breach of contract terms. Under the statue of frauds BTT would not be held liable for not distributing Strat and simple walk away from the deal. 5. No BTT cannot avoid the contract under the doctrine of mistake, because BTT had proposed on meeting its commitments by giving a verbal agreement, before all the changes occurred in their facility. They had sent Chou a fax demanding a plan of the dispersal contract after they had sent him an e-mail that Chou supposed to have switched the previous perception asking him to sketch up a contract. "A unilateral mistake is when only one party had an erroneous

More about Big Toy Maker/ Law 421 Essay

Open Document