Premium Essay

Law421 Big Time Toy Maker

In: Business and Management

Submitted By boarderx7
Words 448
Pages 2
Big Time Toy Maker

Law / 421

Big Time Toy Maker
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
Yes, both parties had a valid contract when they agreed upon the terms of the deal. They both agreed upon the terms and Chou accepted the twenty five thousand dollars from Big Time Toymaker. A written agreement was not needed due to BTT being only a distributer and not a producer.

2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
Chou was paid twenty five thousand dollars by BTT for the negotiation rights to his house board game. This could have given Chou the impression that the contract was finalized. This would be considered a bilateral contract due to two promises and two performances. BTT would perform by distributing the product but would first promise to pay the twenty five thousand dollars. Chou promised to sell the negotiation rights and the performance was to turn them over to BTT for twenty five thousand dollars.

3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in
Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
Since both parties were communicating through email, it does not have an impact on my analysis because of the factors stated earlier of a binding contract. The emails do reinforce the contract in the courts.

4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
The statue of fraud applies to a sale of goods above 500 dollars. Since this contract was in excess of twenty five thousand dollars, it could fall under the statue of frauds. But, because the statue of frauds requires both parties to sign the contract, and neither of the parties signed a contract, this will ultimately be unenforceable.

5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Big Time Toymaker

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Big Time Toymaker a developer manufacturer and distributor of board games and toys recently collaborated with and an inventor named Chou. Chou invented a strategy game called Strat, which requires a distributor. Chou entered into an agreement with Big Time for $25.000 and in return, Chou granted Big Time the exclusive negotiation rights for 90 days. During that time, Big Time honored the agreement, but three days shy of the expiration date, a Big Time manager forwarded a drafted agreement via e-mail, which covered the terms of the agreement. Chou received and responded to the draft in agreement with the terms; however, Big Time did not respond and months later Big Time was no longer interested( Melvin, 2011). The proposed contract existed immediately following the agreement to exclusive rights. The contract from that point was valid for 90 days following the agreement, which obstructed Chou’s ability to negotiate with other distribution outlets. The elements, which validate a contracts formation consist of an offer, BTT offered $25,000 to Chou for exclusive negotiation rights, acceptance Chou accepted the offer and monetary compensation, and finally the consideration for BTT exclusive negotiation rights to the game and Chou $25,000 (Melvin, 2011). The Big Time Toymaker manager drafted an agreement before Chou took initiative; therefore, based on the manager’s initiative resulting in labeling the e-mail with Strat Deal, insertion of key......

Words: 902 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Big Time Toy Maker

...Submitted by Rob Lowe Individual Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker | Read the “Theory to Practice” section at the end of Ch. 6 of the text.Answer Questions 1 through 6 based on the scenario in the “Theory to Practice” section, and complete the following in your response: * At the end of the scenario, BTT states that it is not interested in distributing Chou’s new strategy game, Strat. Assuming BTT and Chou have a contract, and BTT has breached the contract by not distributing the game, discuss what remedies might or might not apply. * Explain your answers and refer to Section 7-6 in Ch. 7 for support.Submit your answers. | 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? After reading the scenario, I believe there was a contract when BTT sent an email to Chau referencing the intital terms of agreement. Here’s the verbage from the scenario… “a BTT manager sent Chou an e-mail with the subject line “Strat Deal” that repeated the key terms of the distribution agreement including price, time frames, and obligations of both parties.” This is where the deal became legal binding. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Mutual Assent. Both parties had verbally agreed to the deal. A reasonable person would have assumed the deal was going to go through because BTT paid Chau 25K for negotiation rights for a 90 day period. At this point there was an enforceable agreement......

Words: 745 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Big Time Toy Maker

...Big Time Toymaker (BTT) is a toy company that sells products to the United States, Canada and Mexico. Chou just created Strat an new strategy game. BTT is interested in distributing this game so they entered into a deal where Chou got $25,000 for negotiation rights for ninety days. This agreement specified that all contracts were to be in writing and there would be no verbal contract. Before the time was up BTT, sent Chou an email that detailed the specified the agreements reached upon their meeting, except for the agreement that Chou was to write up the draft, not BTT. Chou never responded and later BTT sent him a fax, asking for the draft, which Chou again never responded to. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? According to the scenario, both Big Time Toymaker and Chou did have a contract, when they meet and agreed on all the terms and conditions of the distribution, that would be a contract, but because they agreed that there would be no contract unless it was in writing then it can be assumed they never were in contract because there was never a document they both acknowledge and accepted as a contract. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The most important fact weigh in against Chou is that he did get a document before the ninety days expire, this document seemed to express everything that they wanted as agreed in their meeting yet he never responded. The reason why he did......

Words: 511 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Big Time Toymaker

...Vennessa Miller Law421 Professor Nikki Chtaini Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker November 11, 2013 There was contract. What they put together was an agreement in an email. Three days before the expiration of the 90 day period the parties reached an oral distribution agreement at a meeting. Then later a draft agreement contract was sent. The fact that may weigh in favor of Chou is that he has the email that he sent and when he sent the email but on the other hand what may not work in his favor is because both signature is not on the agreement. Yes it does because they do have a source of correspondence to one another. None, since it is a services contract for distribution rights.  The Statute of Frauds only comes into play if it is a goods contract.  If it is believed by the judge to be a goods agreement then the written requirement, the all terms included requirement and the signed by the sender all have been met by the email with its automatic signature of the manager representing BTT. BTT could not avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake because there was no mistake the received an email about the agreement that was made between both parties. The only thing that would help is because they did not sign the agreement so it can be avoided Chou would value by having his product dispersed for sale throughout the network of retail that BTT as a board game company had at their disposal. BTT would profit by laying the blame on their cut for dispensing......

Words: 414 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Toy Time

...It’s toy time Educational products for developing minds 1. Executive Summary: It’s toy time is a specialty toy retailer, operating in Banani 11 no. shop no.1. We are a company that helps to grow the creative power of our children.Our success is our employees and the unique service they render. The large variety of toys at lower prices, the fun-filled atmosphere and service is all that It’s toy time provides its customers.We are the only company who thinks about a childs mental development but not only entertainment. 2. Company Information: * Name: IT’S TOY TIME Inc. * Location: Shop no. 1, Banani 11 no. (Beside Mother Care) Dhaka, 1213 Bangladesh. (We chose it because we were looking for such an area which will help us increase our sales and eventually grow our profit consistently as this location can attract our target market as it’s beside MOTHER CARE) * Shop Size: 750 sq. feet * Rent Expense: 262,500 k ( including water expense) * Advance deposit: 30,00,000 k (for 3 years contract) * Electricity Expense: (2000-3000)k (depending on the usage) * Telephone Expensek with International roaming (depending on the usage) * Color Pattern of Showroom: Yellow, Baby pink and Sky Blue * Type: Privately held Company * Industry: Retail * Website: www.Its’toytime.co.bd * Logo: It’s toy time * Goal: * Short term: To provide innovative, educational toys......

Words: 767 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Big Time Toy Maker

...1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Upon reviewing this situation, Chou and Big Time Toymaker had participated in an oral agreement. During a conference between Chou and BTT a distribution agreement was reached, an e-mail was also directed by BTT to Chou confirming the significant terms of the verbal contract agreed upon during the conference. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? In Chou’s situation, these facts may be in favor for him would be the verbal agreement and email Chou received from BTT. These facts however, are working against Chou. There is never an actual written contract created by Chou or that Chou arrived into a private contractual rights agreement with a 90 day probation with it explicitly stating, “No contract exists unless it is in writing.” Finally, no transcribed contract was turned in within the original 90-day time frame specified in the private negotiation. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? Of course, the e-mail received signifies the response by both Chou and BBT of the dispersal agreement made in the meeting even though the e-mail had failed to mention the word “contract.” 4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? Fraud has a role in case and it applies to this situation. “Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the......

Words: 395 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Case Scenario Big Time Toy Maker

...Case Scenario Big Time Toy maker Aragon Week4 Instructor Rosale Lopez April 16, 2014 Level One Heading Option Contract and Distribution Agreement After reading this scenario, Big time toy maker and Chou did take part in an oral contract. In a meeting between BTT and Chou oral Documents were signed which bind both parties to fulfill certain obligations. A written contract was not necessary since this was a contract mainly dealing with services to disseminate the game, not a production contract or a sales contract Had it occupied a good contract to buy, sell which under which under the Statutes of Frauds would not be a contract until all the terms were not put in writing: that occurred when the supervisor from BTT emailed the terms which would have included his electronic signature and thus would have sealed the contract between the two. Furthermore whenever the contract is under (general) law besides the (mailbox) rule could say it went into effect when it was sent and not received. Into effect when was sent but not received. The analysis of the case verifies that the two parties were definitely not involved in a binding of the contract they never had a written contract or documented legal frame work. But the parties did have......

Words: 725 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Week 4 Big Time Toy Maker

...Big Time Toy Maker 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? Chou could take BTT to court for breach of contract. When BTT paid Chou $2,500 for, and Chou gave BTT exclusive negotiation rights for 90 days, they both mutually assented to a legally binding agreement. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), if the contract of the sale of goods is $500, or more, and any lease transactions for the sale of $1000, or more, the statute the statute of frauds apply (Melvin, 2011). The $2,500 Chao received met this requirement. When BTT sent Chou an email 3 days before the expiration of the 90 day agreement, which included the price, time frames, and the obligations of both parties, it signified to Chao that BTT still intends to do business with Chao, and meets all the requirement for a contract. Chao's intentions were to draft the contract as agreed upon, but Chao made a unilateral mistake, he had an erroneous belief that the email between BTT and Chao, with all the terms already in it, plus the mutual assent of the two parties, was the actual contract. Thirty days passed before BTT, requested the distribution agreement contract from Chao, by fax. Up to this point, Chao thought he already had an agreement through the email. By BTT sending the fax, it signifies to Chao that the BTT wishes to proceed with the business transaction. Chao sends the draft......

Words: 393 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Big Time Toymaker

...Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 Big Time Toymaker This paper will discuss the Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker along with the related questions and answers. Big Time Toymaker (BTT) is a company that specializes in board games and other toys. Their organization covers all aspects of this industry including developing, manufacturing, and distribution of board games and other toys. In this particular case scenario Big Time Toymaker was interested in a specific new strategy game called Strat invented by an individual named Chou (MELVIN, 2011). Big Time Toymaker paid Chou $25,000 for exclusive negotiation rights for a term of 90-days. Within the exclusive negotiation rights it stated that no distribution contract will exist until it’s in writing. Three days before the 90-day term ended both parties made an oral distribution agreement while in a meeting. After reaching this oral agreement Chou offered to draft a contract restating everything agreed upon orally. Before the contract was drafted by Chou, he received an e-mail from a BTT manger stating the key terms of the orally agreement, which include prices, time frames, and obligations expected of both parties (MELVIN, 2011). Chou neglected to daft a contract due to the content of the received e-mail and after some time received a fax requesting a copy of the drafted distribution agreement contract. Even though Chou delivered the contract immediately following the request several months went by......

Words: 674 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Toy Maker

...Big Time Toy Maker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? In the theory of practice, big time toy maker, the parties involved did not have a contract. In the scenario it stated that the parties had reached an agreement 3 days prior to the end of the 90 day deadline, which was set in the negotiation period.” The exclusive negotiation agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. Just three days before the expiration of the 90-day period”. (Melvin, 2011,). If there is no legal binding and no signature, then there is no contract. 2. Some facts weigh in favor or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract are • The board games were already paid out by BTT, which was $25K for the exclusive negotiation rights. This helps Chou to believe that the company had intent in arriving at a distribution agreement • An oral agreement meeting with a follow-up e-mail from the BTT manager on the key agreement. • A Fax from BTT requesting a draft for a distribution agreement contract agreement and Chou responded immediately Facts that weigh against Chou are: • The negotiation statement stated that no contract exists unless it is in writing there was no signature to bind the contract. • The 90-day deadline passed with only an oral agreement • The word “contract” has left off the e-mail received from the BTT manager • Chou failed to draft a distribution agreement contract......

Words: 1260 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Big Time Toy Maker Case Scenario

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toy Maker LAW/421 May 5, 2015 Case Scenario: Big Time Toy Maker At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? The two parties, Big Time Toymaker and Chou entered into a contract when they came to the initial agreement where Big Time would pay $25,000 for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90 day period. What facts may weigh in favor or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The biggest factor in favor of Choe is that in the initial exclusive negotiation agreement, it was stated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. Even though Chou never drafted an actual contract, the manager of Big Time sent an email with all of the details of a contract to him. Since all four parts of a contract existed, this is a contract, even though the email did not say so. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact? The fact that the parties are communicating by email gives tangible proof to the agreement being made and proof of the 4 parts to a contract. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? The Statute of Frauds requires contracts to have signatures. If this contract is found to fall in this category, which it may since the value is over five hundred dollars, it may be found invalid. Now, depending on what state, the fact that both parties responded via e-mail, their name signed at the end may be considered an electronic......

Words: 521 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Big Time Toy

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Law 421 Name Here 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? This is a very interesting case. I think both parties should have had a lawyer present. The problem for Chou is it stated (The exclusive negotiation agreement Stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing.) There was an email sent and Chou looked at the email as a form of a contract but in the legal terms nothing was signed or agrees too. Chou may have had a contract by legal terms because of the nature of the deal and dealing with a merchant. Imagine renting an apartment and the lease is not signed. Then you don’t have a lease agreement. I think Chou may be able to receive money for the verbal agreement in a private legal matter but nothing was ever signed. UCC Article 2 could apply because of the verbal agreement ( contract could be enforce in the court of law). I do think the emails help Chou in the court of law. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? I think the fact that both parties did reach a verbal agreement would help 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. The exclusive negotiation agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. Just three days before the......

Words: 1016 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Big Time Toy Maker

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toy Maker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Our textbook defines a contract as “a promise or a set of promises enforceable by law” (). A contract does not necesarily has to be in writing. A contract can be oral and enforceable. Big Time Toymaker and Chou took part in an oral contract. Big Time Toy Maker and Chou held a meeting where an oral distribution agreement was reached. In addition, Big Time Toy sent an email to Chou confirming the agreement. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts that may weigh in favor of Chow are the exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period, the oral agreement that was reached at the meeting and the email he received from Big Time Toy. The facts against Chou would be that there is never an actual written agreement drafted by Chou. In addition, the exclusive negotiation rights agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. Finally, no written agreement was turned in within the original 90-day period stipulated in the exclusive negotiation right agreement. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? Yes, because the email represents the acknowledgment by both parties of the distribution agreement made in the meeting despite the e-mail failing to mention the word “contract.” In addition...

Words: 402 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Big Time Toy Maker

...Big Time Toymaker Ronda Bonny LAW/421 AUGUST 13, 2012 JAMES ZACCARIA Big Time Toymaker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? After reading the case scenario, I do not believe either of the two parties involved ever established a binding distribution contract. It is true an oral distribution agreement was achieved just three days prior to the 90-day deadline, which was a condition established in the original negotiating contract. However, as clearly stated in the original negotiating contract, there is not to be a distribution agreement, or contract, unless it is in writing. After the meeting, Chou volunteered to draft the distribution contract that would formalize their agreement. However, before Chou could finish the draft, he received an e-mail from the BTT manager. The e-mail with the subject line “Strat Deal,” focused on the key points of the distribution agreement between both parties, including the price, time frames, and obligations of both parties. After receiving this e-mail, Chou incorrectly assumed that BTT wanted to draft the contract. Thus Chou stopped working on the draft and a month passed by. This passage of time voided any previous agreement because of the 90-day clause to finalize the contract. What BTT and Chou had was not a binding or enforceable contract. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts that prove there was no binding distribution......

Words: 734 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Law421 Big Time Toymaker

...Big Time Toymaker At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? BTT paid Chou $25,000.00 to have exclusive rights for negotiations for a 90 day period. Big Time Toymaker and Chou did not have a binding enforceable contract made during this 90 day period. An oral distribution agreement was made three day before the 90 days deadline, but it was in the negotiations. But the negotiations said that there was not supposed to be an agreement unless it was in writing. Three days before the deadline, after the meeting Chou offered to draft the contract that would formalize their agreement. Before Chou could finish the draft, an e-mail was received from a BTT manager. The e-mail repeated the key terms of the distribution agreement including price, time frame, and obligations of both parties. Chou stopped working on the draft for one month, because he believed that BTT was going to draft the contract. During this time the 90 days had passed and it voided any agreement of the 90 days agreement that BTT and Chou had (Melvin, 2011 pg. 136). What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts that weigh against Chou’s in terms of the parties’ objective intent to a contract are that there was no written agreement, which was required in the negotiations. There was also no signatures were used to make the contract official. The word contract was never used in the email sent from BTT. Also the 90 day deadline that was...

Words: 1069 - Pages: 5