Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
Essay Preview: Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
Report this essay
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
Arie Mcquaig Sr.
LAW/421
Pamela Weddell
At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
Big Time Toymaker and Mr. Chou, had a binding contract when Big Time Toymaker sent Mr. Chou an email repeating what the two parties had discussed in regards to the key terms of the distribution agreement. The emailed included price, time frames, and obligations of both parties.
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 Mr. Chou is the fact that an email was sent
from BBT to Chou that included in the subject to say “Strat Deal” and then the
email contained information regarding the key terms of their distribution
agreement. It went over the price, time frames, and obligations of both parties.
This email was sent within the 90 day negotiation period.
Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
Yes, the email definitely had an impact because it represents the acknowledgement from both parties on the terms of the distribution agreement that was discussed in their meeting.
What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
The UCC statute of frauds has a legal requirement on certain contracts to be in writing in order to be enforceable. It requires that any sales contract for goods with a total value of $500 or more must be in writing. Also the UCC statute of frauds requirement is met as long as the writing contains (1) quanity, (2) the signature of the party who enforcement is being enforced upon, and (3) there has to be verbiage that would show that both parties had intent to form a contract. The email that BBT sent to Chou contains all three UCC statute of frauds requirements.
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?
Under the doctrine of mistake BTT would not be able to avoid this contract. In contract law, is states that a mistake is an erroneous belief that is not is accord with the existing facts. BBT had not stated that there were any mistakes to their agreement. Chou could have an unilateral mistake due to the fact that before he could draw up a contract BBT had sent an email that Chou mistakenly took as a replacement of the contract.
Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports