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 contract was an exclusive contract. It started with BTT was interested in distributing Strat, and the agreement was with Chou and BTT on an exclusive negotiation rights for 90 days. With this exclusive there was a $25,000 exchange. The stipulations of this negotiation was that there be no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. Before the expiration period, the parties had reached an oral agreement.
Case Scenario Big Time Toy Maker … LAW/421 Facilitator: … … Case Scenario Big Time Toy Maker (1) At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? A 90 day negotiation contract has been set in place upon the $25,000 payment to Chou, however; a distribution agreement was to be completed within the 90 day negotiation grace period. Based on the case scenario, the negotiation agreement stated that no contract existed unless it was in writing. The paper work that was interchanged between BTT and Chou were drafts, a formal written contract was not in place, therefore a formal distribution contract between the BTT and Chou did not exist. (2) What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
When Chou received an email with the details of what they were going to agree upon, he presumed the email was the contract and did not proceed in drawing up a contract himself. Months passed, and when BTT changed management, BTT notified Chou that BTT was not going to peruse a distribution agreement for Chou's new strategy game, (Strat). In the Case Scenario, the two parties, BTT, which is the offeror and Chou which is the offeree were engaging in a goods or products type contract. State statutory law governs contracts that involved goods or products such as the strategy game that BTT was distributing for Chou. With the exception of Louisiana state statutory law.
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? “One generally accepted definition of a contract is a promise or a set of promises enforceable by law” (Melvin, 2011, p. 194). In this scenario, Big Time Toymaker entered into an option contract with Chou. “BTT was interested in distributing Strat and entered into an agreement with Chou whereby BTT paid him $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period” (Melvin, 2011, p. 155).
After three days of negotiation, Porter presented a settlement offer of $250,000 to Schultz over the telephone and subsequently mailed a check of that amount to Schultz based off of an agreement between the two. This agreement was ambiguous as Porter stated in his deposition that Schultz did not accept the offer over the telephone but agreed that having the check in his hands would help him make a decision. Schultz’s reception of the settlement check of $250,000 was verified by Porter via telephone on 4/28/10. Schultz retained the settlement check without cashing it over the next eight months. During this time period Porter attempted to make contact with Schultz in order to obtain a definitive acceptance; he called eleven times, leaving eleven voicemail messages and sent seven written letters; the letters stated that the FLCI has assumed acceptance and that the check should be returned immediately if Schultz
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 event planner first attempted to add three rooms to the contract in excess of the 13K on the first day. This violation was reported to the COR and the event planner removed the request. The second violation came on the second day when the event planners attempt to provide childcare at a different location besides the hotel. The childcare facility was ten blocks away from the hotel. This violation was reported to the COR and upon contacting the event planner, the events planner provided the childcare in accordance with the awarded contract.
During the conversation, government informed Mil-Spec that due to expiration of fund including contingency fund for the project, it is impossible for the government to pay additional cost over contingency amount of up to $7,000, and such contingency fund will also expire after September 30, 1983. Three days before funds expired, Mil-Spec and government negotiator, Mr. Barker, had phone conversation and orally agreed on the settlement as Mil-Spec to drop its cost increase amount proposal to $6,367 from $70,956, extension of project by 87 days, and the cost of $6,367 to be paid right upon the settlement, these are subject to contract officer’s approval. The contract officer Mr. Hooppaw prepared standard form 30, contract modification, signed and mailed to Mil-Spec for counter sign. However, Mil-Spec called the government, and informed that Mil-Spec would not sign the modification form. The reason behind of this was because IRS at Mil-Spec informed Mr. Barnes before he signed the form that he could claim more funds than what government proposed in the modification.
A factor benefitting Chou is BTT paid him 25K for negotiation rights for a 90-day period. Both parties agreed to an agreement using a combination of offer and acceptance called mutual assent (Melvin, 2011). Because BTT paid Chou 25K (there must be a receipt somewhere), there was an enforceable agreement between Chou and BTT. A court of law may consider this evidence of intent. 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).