February 19, 2014
Professor Shaune Arnold
Case Scenario: BTT
1. In regards to a written contract, there was no point to where Chou and BTT had a written contract. Chou and BTT did however have an oral agreement and an email stating these agreements for the future, but because Chou did not respond to this email or sign any contract there was in fact no written contract. In the exclusive negation agreement it stated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing.
2. A fact that can weigh in favor for Chou is the amount of $25,000 paid to him by BTT for an exclusive negotiation agreement. With this payment and negotiation it is suggested that BTT had the intent to create a contract with Chou. A fact that can weigh against Chou is that he assumed that the email could be used as a contract between the two parties and therefore did not draft a contract. Chou allowed for one month to pass and received a request for a distribution agreement. BTT in the end changed their mind because of new management and decided to not create a business contract with Chou.
3. The fact that the two parties were communicating by email shows the intent for a contract and the severity of the business deal. In terms of a contract it does not create a contract through email because there was no agreement between the two parties with effective communication.
4. The statute of frauds states that a contract must be in writing for it to be valid. In this case there was no written contract which showed a written agreement for both parties.
5. The doctrine of mistake refers to a void in the contract due to a