Simply redesigning the contract could allow them ton continue forward with a contract that is far less likely to result in a dispute. A verbal agreement was reached on day 87 of the day exclusive negotiation.
During a meeting between the two parties, a verbal contract was created related to the distribution of a strategy game created by Chou. Additionally, Chou and BTT reached an oral agreement for distribution on day 87 of the day exclusive negotiation agreement with an understanding that Chou would generate a written contract to memorialize the agreement.
Although email is not an ideal venue of communication for a legal agreement, the language used in the communication by BTT is sufficient to reasonably conclude that the email constituted the written agreement between both parties. The Legal Environment of Business: It is possible to enter a written agreement via email.
Second, BTT sent an email detailing the terms of the oral agreement reached by both parties on day 87 of the exclusive negotiation agreement.
The contract is determined to be valid if shown that an offer was made by BTTand there was acceptance by Chou. Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?
This shows mutual assent as the promisee, Chou, gave up a legal right and the promisor, BTT, made its promised based on a mutual exchange. Assuming BTT and Chou have a contract, and BTT has breached the contract by not distributing the game, discuss what remedies might or might not apply.
The doctrine of mistake allows a contract to be voidable if it is demonstrated certain facts were believed to be true at the time, but were later determined to be false. In this case, Chou responded via email to Big Time Toymaker shortly after their oral agreement had been reach.
This failure to perform also results in consequential damages for indirect future losses to Chou. If the contract between Chou and BTT falls into the category of the statute of frauds, it would most likely be considered invalid.
What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? Yes, he fact that the two parties were communicating by email further complicates the issues.
Could BTT avoid this under the doctrine of mistake? BTT and Chou must exhibit mutual assent to determine when a contract was reached. Big Time Toymaker The case study of Big Time Toymaker provides an excellent example of the complexities of contract law. The two parties, which consist of Chou and Big Time Toymaker, entered a verbal contract in the scenario.
This occurrence will definitely hold weight in court to determine if a valid contract was actually reached. This could be seen as evidence that the company had intended to secure a contract for his product. The following analysis will answer questions about the case and provide insight into contract law in a business setting.
The legal issues presented are as follows: This would be considered a valid contract because both parties were of sound mind and met the basic contract requirements.
Contracts are legal agreements between two parties that are that define a wide variety of business relationships. Assuming the email is accepted by the courts as a written agreement between Chou and BTT, an attempt by BTT to avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake would likely fail.
Furthermore, Big Time Toymaker sent a follow-up email to Chou after the meeting to outline the details to of the oral contract that had been created. The exclusive negotiation agreement shows the intent of BTT to reach a written agreement with Chou to distribute Strat.
Big Time Toymaker requested a distribution agreement, but Chou had also let the day deadline for a pass without providing an inked signature. Both BTT and Chou could still benefit from a business relationship. The main factor that is weighing against Chou is that he never secured a contract in writing.
Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?Big Time Toymaker Scenario In chapter six of The Legal Environment of Business: A Managerial Approach: Theory to Practice, Melvin presents the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou the game inventor.
Theory To Practice The Case Scenario Is The Big Time Toymaker Big Time Toymaker Scenario LAW/ Big Time Toymaker Scenario In chapter six of The Legal Environment of Business: A Managerial Approach: Theory to Practice, Melvin presents the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou the game inventor.
Big Time Toymaker Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Students Name LAW/ Date Due Instructors Name Big Time Toymaker (BTT) is a company that develops, manufactures, and distributes board games and other toys to.
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Based on the Case Scenario: Theory to Practice scenario involving Big Time Toymaker (BTT), a company that develops, manufactures, and distributes board games and other toys globally, entered into an agreement with Chou, an independent inventor of a new strategy game he name Strat, to distribute.
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker 2 Read the “Theory to Practice” section at the end of Ch. 6 of the text. Answer Questions 1 through 6 based on the scenario in the “Theory to Practice” section, and complete the following in your response: At the end of the scenario, BTT states that it is not interested in distributing Chou’s new strategy game.
Big Time Toymaker Scenario LAW/ Big Time Toymaker Scenario In chapter six of The Legal Environment of Business: A Managerial Approach: Theory to Practice, Melvin presents the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou the game inventor.Download