Big Time Toymaker Case Study

Submitted By lalocalou
Words: 643
Pages: 3

Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
LAW 421

Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
a. Chou and BTT entered into an agreement that "stipulated that no distribution contact existed unless it was in writing." The e-mail that was sent by BTT would be a contract because it shows the intent and any normal person would assume as Chou did that this was a contract from the negotiations. According to Melvin (2011), this is called the objective standard.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
a. According to Melvin (2011), Object intent is defined as “Requirement for an offer to have legal effect necessitating that generally, the party offering must have a serious intention to become bound by the offer and the terms of the offer must be reasonably certain. Chou was not being unreasonable in his understanding that BTT was making a contract with him.
3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2?
a. According to Melvin (2011), the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) “elevates electronic signatures and records to the same legal status as are accorded to traditional signatures and paper records, memoranda, notices, and so forth. The law covers […] the use of electronic communication alongside paper contracts.”
4. What roles does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
a. The statue of fraud tends to play a great role in this contract. According to (Sean P. Melvin) "Under the Uniform Commercial code, the statute of frauds applies to any contract for the sale of goods that are $500 or more, as well as any lease transactions that are amounting $1000 or more". In this case Chou ended up receiving a $25,000 payment in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights in accordance to a 90-day period, which, unfortunately, was not met.
5. 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 void?
a. BTT is unable to use the doctrine of mistake to void this contract because there is no evidence pointing to a mistake on BTT’s behalf. This scenario only proves that BTT changed their mind about conducting business with Chou. Unfortunately, a change of mind is not a valid reason to avoid the contract under the doctrine of mistake. Due to there