Facts against: In the original negotiation agreement it was stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. Another possible fact that could weigh against Chou is that although the agreement was drafted it was not sent because if the misinterpretation that the email was in fact the contract. Question 3: Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? Communication via email does have some impact to the question of contract but it is not enough to rule out a contract completely. The use of email may be binding if it does not state that the intent is to only negotiate terms.
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.
No clause in the statue argue that the treaty should be applied retroactively, and it is not explicitly stated in the treaty during the initial signing of it. Additionally, it was neither Eurasian municipal law or customary at the time. Eurasia can state it was part of the 25% who never engaged in this practice before the treaty. According to the Lotus Case, if the states are divided on whether an action is obligatory you do not have customary international law. Lastly, Eurasia does not agree to the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over this case, so it has no right to sue the country.
Although there are many facts in favor of Chou there was never a signed contract which legally means that there was never a contract in existence because there was no written signed documentation. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1
The e-mail never mentioned the word “contract,” it did not have too because the four elements of contract formation were not present. The exclusive negotiation agreement stipulated that no distribution contract will exist unless it was in writing. Because of this clause no contract could be established unless in writing. What Facts may Weight in Favor of or against Chou The following facts may weight against Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract. The exclusive negotiation agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing.
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.
For all I know they could have been talking about an alternative to switching to a long term contract or maybe asking the bank permission to change the contract. There is not a lot of proof stating that the bank didn’t follow the clauses of a contract that didn’t exist. It say in the Business Law textbook on page 158 heading one paragraph one, a valid contract consist of the essential elements, an agreement, is supported by legally sufficient consideration, is between parties with contractual capacity. In the case study it never stated that the bank actually agreed to any oral contract about long term financing. Case
First, they say that it was no intention that brings to the legally binding agreement. But the court held that there was legal intention because it was a commercial transaction and intention was presumed. Another argue by the company said that the ad was just an invitation to treat (not a contract). But the court held that a newspaper advertisement was generally offers to treat, which in other word could be said specifically as an offer. Then, the company also argue that Mrs. Carlill did not make an acceptance or agreement to the offer, as one of a contract element.