AllFreePapers.com - All Free Papers and Essays for All Students
Search

Law 421 - Case Scenario-Big Time Toymaker

Autor:   •  November 23, 2015  •  Coursework  •  447 Words (2 Pages)  •  459 Views

Page 1 of 2

Case Scenario: Big Time Toy Maker

Andrew Holan

LAW 421

Mr. Cardillo

November 3, 2015


        In reviewing the case scenario I was asked to answer the following questions:

  1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?

The parties, Big Time Toymaker and Chou, have entered into a verbal contract in the scenario.  At the meeting, the parties created a verbal contract that covered the distribution of the strategy game created by Mr. Chou.  This contract is valid because the parties in question were both considered to be of sound mind when the basic requirements of the contract were drawn up.  On top of that, Big Time Toymaker then sent an email that stated the outline of the details involved in their verbal contract with Chou.

  1. What facts may weigh in favor or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?

There are multiple factors that will be in favor of Chou in the given scenario.  There is the implied agreement of paying $25,000 for the exclusive rights for distribution of the product.  This can be interpreted as the company intending to purchase the rights in a contract for Chou’s product.  The factor working against Chou is that he never actually received a contract in writing.

  1. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by email have any impact?

Yes, because you can agree to a contract via email.  The fact that the parties involved communicated via email, in particular Chou had responded to Big Time Toymaker that described the verbal agreement they had reached.

  1. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?

It is important because the statute of fraud requires a signature in writing to be valid for certain contracts.  If that is determined to be the case in this scenario, then the contract will most likely be determined to be invalid.

  1. Could BTT avoid this under the doctrine of mistake?

I do not believe this will be applicable in this case because BTT had very intricate details in the email they sent to Chou, which would make this a moot point.

  1. Assuming, arguendo, that this email does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?

The email states what is going to happen to both parties.  Chou will provide the rights to his game, while Big Time Toymaker will provide cash in return and the resources necessary to distribute his game to a mass market.  The emails puts the conditions in writing, but also makes sure to specify that it is a verbal contract.  This means the only thing missing to make this contract valid is signatures.

...

Download as:   txt (2.6 Kb)   pdf (69.3 Kb)   docx (9 Kb)  
Continue for 1 more page »