Miss Essay

536 Words3 Pages
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? A contract between Chou and BTT had a contract as soon as they entered into an agreement for exclusive negotiation rights. This contract was good for the 90-day period where Chou could not negotiate any other kind of distribution with others. A second contract was made when was made with the e-mail made by BTT manager. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The fact weigh in favor for Chou because the contract of distribution was wrote out by the BTT manager. The negotiation agreement stated it had to be in writing. The manager of BTT writing out the key terms of the agreement along with the obligations of each party makes this a valid contract. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? The communication through e-mail has an impact because this is when the agreement was put into writing. This is what the original negation agreement stated that no distribution contract would exist until it was in writing. E-mail is a written form. 4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? Intent to authenticate is used to determine whether the e-mail would satisfies the status of fraud this would where what state they were in; states courts are still determining what extent e-mail can be used to satisfy the statute of frauds. 5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided? Even if the e-mail were not considered, the contract and the draft that Chou drew up would fall under parole evidence rule for written contracts. This would go for both sides that neither side could avoid the contract unless both

More about Miss Essay

Open Document