Big Time Toymaker
Submitted By Tamica-Johnson
Words: 855
Pages: 4
Big Time Toymaker
Tamica Johnson
LAW/421
April 27, 2015
Andrew McAdams
Big Time Toymaker
Assuming that BTT and Chou had a contract, and BTT breached the contract by not distributing the game, the remedies that may or may not be applied will be discussed. There are several questions to be answered. One is at what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Another question is what facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent of contract? The third question is does the fact that the parties were communicating by email have an impact on the first and second questions? The fourth question is what role does the statue of frauds play in this contract? The fifth question is could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake; would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided? Lastly, assuming arguendo, does this email constitute an agreement and what consideration this agreement?
Big Time Toymaker
According to Melvin (2015), in order for a contract to have been assumed, there must be certain requirements fulfilled for a contract to exist. There must be a mutual assent, or the parties must have an offer and acceptance. The law requires that the parties’ acts or words lead the other party to reasonably believe that an agreement was reached.
BTT offered Chou $25,000 for an exclusive negotiation for 90 days. Chou accepted this. Also, three days before the 90 days were up, a manager outlined the oral agreement in writing. It included all the terms agreed upon, and BTT requested a draft for a distribution agreement contract. With the offer of $25,000, and a request for a draft of distribution, there is an implied contract by BTT. The above also answer question two. The actions of BTT implied a contract with Chou.
The fact that the parties communicated orally, and then BTT placed the conversation in email (written) form, shows the intent of BTT to distribute for Chou. According to Melvin (2015), the statue of frauds requires a signed writing for consideration of marriage, contracts that cannot be performed within one year, contracts involving transfer of land, contracts by the executor of a will, contracts for the sale of goods of more than $500.00, and contracts where one party becomes a surety.
According to Coleman (2015), the doctrine of mistake has to be agreed upon by both parties. There are guidelines for the doctrine of mistake. One is a common mistake. The other is a mutual mistake. It is my observation that Chou did not make a mistake. However, Chou believed everything that BTT told him orally and placed in writing via email. Big Time Toymaker According to Law.com (2015), assuming arguendo is Latin “for the sake of argument”. Therefore, assuming arguendo, the email does in fact constitute an agreement. A manager working for BTT, sent an email stating all the terms that had been orally agreed upon. Therefore, BTT has entered into a contract spelling out the terms of the agreement.
Conclusion
There are many times companies enter into contracts, and then officers are replaced. This does not vacate the formation and agreement of contracts. BTT entered into a 90 day exclusive negotiation with Chou. Also, by writing out what the oral agreement was between Chou and BTT, BTT has now
