Big Time Toymaker Case Scenario Essay

1. At what point, if ever, did the parties drop a extort? I do non gestate the deuce parties involved ever had a develop. In the scenario, the parties reached an agreement still triplet days before the end of a 90-day deadline set in the original duologue tackle. In the original dialogue slew, it states that thither would be no dissemination shoot unless it was in writing. When the BTT manager sent the netmail to bread, he mentioned the ground of a diffusion agreement, but it does non make the electronic mail a contract as incomplete party signed it. Only an literal agreement was reached. Without a leg completelyy natural covering draft and the signature of both parties present, no contract existed. 2. What particulars may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract? BTT had paid Chou $25,000 for the exclusive negotiation rights to his carte game which lead Chou to believe they were serious about approach shot to an agreement on a diffusion contract.This is a fact that would weigh in favor of Chou. However, both parties only make an literal agreement, and not a scripted contract to show this fact. Since the contract was not drafted within the original 90-day period, the sensitive focal point was not obligated to distribute the board game and in that locationfore, had every right to fleck Chou away instead of reward the oral contract. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by email commit whatever jounce on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? No, it did not have any impact on my analysis of the situation. electronic mail is a have of electronic communication, not a written and signed contract. eon both parties may have communicated their intentions and terms of the contract, they never printed and signed any form of a written agreement. This factor makes all of the difference when it comes to enforceable contracts. What BTT and Chou had was not a binding or en forceable contract.4. What role does the statute of mockerys play in this contract? Under the UCC, the statue of fraud applies to a contract for the sales of goods in wastefulness of $500. The negotiations between BTT and Chou were over $500, so the statues of fraud would apply here. Under UCC polices, the statue of fraud applies when a contract cannot be accomplish within one years term. Under these stipulations, the statute would apply. 5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of stray? Explain. Would either party have any different defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided? BTT would not be able to avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake. A mistake is defined under contract law as the belief that is not in accord with the facts. A mistake was not defined anywhere within this scenario.BTT has only one real defense and that would be that no contract was ever reached in writing nor signed by both parties. The fact that no signatures on a contr act ever existed would be a defense that Chou never concord to the terms and conditions. Chou could argue that there was no existed agreement due to the time passed between communications of the two parties involved. 6. Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement? The fact that BTT gave a check for $25,000 for the exclusive negotiating rights shows that BTT intend to reach a contract with Chou. The two parties also reached an oral agreement, but oral agreements are hard to enforce in court. BTT had also sent Chou a fax asking him to send them a draft of a contract for the distribution agreements.At the end of the scenario, BTT states that it is not provoke in distributing Chous 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 competency or might not apply. Equitable remedies may have applied in this case. Chou woul d be able to seek compensatory damages for his losings. These dismissiones could include out-of-pocket expenses and even loss of potential profits had BTT honored their dowery of the contract.