Premium Essay

Law/421 Week 4 Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker

In: Business and Management

Submitted By laresearch1
Words 602
Pages 3
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Big Time Toymaker (BTT) granted Chou a binding option to enter a contract, known as an option contract. BTT (offeror) pays Chou (offeree) $25K to keep an offer open in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. Therefore, BTT purchased the rights to negotiate a distribution agreement for Chou’s invention (a board game). The agreement stipulated that at the end of the 90-day period, if the parties could not come to terms on a distribution deal. Chou would be free to enter into a contract with another distribution company and keeps the $25K. This is a valid enforceable oral contract between BTT and Chou.
Upon close study, I do not believe that the parties concerned ever had a distribution agreement contract. The negotiation agreement specified that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. The two came to an oral agreement three days before the 90-day deadline. Immediately, following the meeting the BTT manager sent Chou an e-mail with “Strat Deal” in the subject line, reiterating the key terms of the oral distribution agreement in regard to price, time frames, and obligations of both parties (Melvin, 2011). However, there was no evidence to show that Chou ever accepted the offer via e-mail in accordance with the governing common law mailbox rule. Only an oral agreement was reached; with no legally binding draft and the signature of both parties present, no contract exists.
2. What facts may weigh in favor or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
Facts that weight in favor of Chou:
• BTT had paid out $25K for the exclusive negotiation rights for his board game; this would cause Chou to believe that the company had intent in arriving at a distribution agreement
• Meeting that concluded with an oral…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Big Time Toymaker

...Big Time Toymaker Jean Augustin Law/421 October 1, 2012 Thomas Wilson Abstract Big Time Toymaker (BTT) agreement with Cho for extension of exclusive distribution rights is being challenged due to a lack of written agreement. BTT reached an oral agreement which is not binding due to the stipulations in their original agreement, which states that all contracts must be in writing. Both parties have communicated the terms of the distribution agreements via email and fax, after a change in management at BTT, Cho’s verbal agreement fax, and email communications are being challenged and are not recognized as a binding contract by BTT. Case Scenario Big Time Toymaker Determining the legitimacy or the point where both parties entered into an agreement will determine if the contract is valid or unenforceable. In this scenario both parties have an oral agreement, which took place before the 90 day expiration period. According to Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) a contract can be enforced based on a larger picture that consists of (1) past commercial conduct, (2) correspondence or verbal exchanges between the parties, and (3) industry standards and norms (MELVIN, 2012, p. 182). The question is, are the agreements enforceable since both a verbal and a written agreement exists. Contract established Big Time Toymaker sent Chou a drafted agreement, the email displayed the terms of the contract, and the title of the email read ”Strat Deal”; to a reasonable person this can be......

Words: 861 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Case Scenario Big Time Toymaker

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Big Time Toymaker (BTT) develops, manufactures, and distributes board games and other toys in North America, Chou is the inventor of a new strategy game he calls Strat. BTT had an interest in distributing Strat and entered into an agreement with Chou, offering him $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. This agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. On day 87 of the agreement, the parties held a negotiation meeting and came to an oral agreement on the terms of the distribution agreement. Chou offered to draft the written distribution agreement and send to BTT. Before Chou could draft the contract, BTT’s manager sent Chou an e-mail with the subject line “Strat Deal” that outlined the key terms of the distribution agreement, including price, time frames, and responsibilities of both parties and their acceptance of the agreement. Chou, believing that this e-mail was the final written agreement, let one-month pass before BTT sent a fax requesting he fax over the draft distribution agreement contract. Chou immediately faxed the draft contract to BTT; however several months passed without a response from BTT. After a change in management at BTT, Chou was advised that BTT was not interested in distributing his game. This paper will review the case scenario and highlight why Chou has a case against BTT for breach of......

Words: 2098 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Case Scenario - Big Time Toymaker

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Ryan Sherrett LAW/421 June 10, 2013 Faculty: Mark Rorem Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? The contract was established at the in-person meeting where the distribution agreement details were agreed upon. The fact that Chou was going to reiterate the details in writing is not required. The manager emailing the same agreed upon details confirms BTT's agreement of the terms. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Some facts that may weigh in favor of Chou would be that all parties came to an agreement in person and also that a member of BTT management sent the email re-stating the details of the agreement. A fact that may weigh against Chou, however, is that no agreement was made in writing and if entirely new management is in place at BTT, there may not be any witnesses to that original in-person agreement left other than Chou himself. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? It does not directly impact the analysis, but is a factor in the process only so much as it replaces a written agreement. There was an agreement that an agreement would be written up for everyone, but no indication that anyone needed to actually sign anything so the email would sufficiently satisfy the requirement. 4. What role does...

Words: 571 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Big Time Toymakers

...Big Time Toymaker Latasha McClure LAW/421 July 26, 2013 Cory Childs Big Time Toymaker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Big Time Toymaker and Chou entered in to a contract when BTT paid Chou 25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for 90 days. This showed all elements of a contract there was mutual assent, consideration when BTT paid the 25,000, it was legal and both parties had contractual capacity. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? There are several factors that may weigh in favor of Chou BTT paid Chou 25,000 for exclusive negotiation right for 90 day. One of BTT managers sent Chou an e-mail with the subject line start deal that stated all the terms of the oral agreement all of this shows intent. The article was unclear if the e-mail was signed by the manager of BTT this is the only thing that my help BTT. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in question 1 and 2 (above)? No the e-mails does not have any impact on my analysis because the e-mail could satisfy the Statue of Frauds Law because most e-mails are signed. E-mails sent by company management normally have the company logo on the letter head. 4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? The statute of frauds plays a huge role in this contract. If this case were to be taken to court the lawyers for Chou could......

Words: 469 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Big Time Toymaker

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Students Name LAW/421 Date Due Instructors Name Big Time Toymaker (BTT) is a company that develops, manufactures, and distributes board games and other toys to the U.S, Mexico, and Canada. Chou is the inventor of a new strategy game he named Strat. Big Time Toymaker and Chou entered into an agreement whereby Chou would receive $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. The agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. This paper will explain if Big Time Toymaker and Chou had an enforceable contract and any remedies they may use. Big Time Toymaker and Chou entered in a verbal contract when both parties negotiated the terms of BTT paying Chou $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. The parties had an oral agreement at the conclusion of their meeting, and this converted into written contract when BTT sent the email confirming that all essential contract terms had been met. This email provides evidence of BTT’s objective intent to be bound by the terms of their agreement, and we know Chou intended to be bound since he is the one seeking to enforce their agreement. The facts that weigh in favor of Chou would be the e-mail that contains all the terms of the agreement. Technically it is in writing and that was the only clause in their verbal arrangement. The facts that weigh against Chou would be that the e-mailed was not signed by......

Words: 635 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Big Time Toymaker

...Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 September 25, 2014 Phillip Muir - University of Phoenix Big Time Toymaker BTT and Chou made an exclusive negotiation agreement for a 90 day period. There were specific stipulations that a written agreement must be in affect and signed within this time frame. Both parties had reached an oral agreement before the 90 day expiration had occurred and also had contacted each other through an e mail repeating the terms of the oral agreement on paper. This electronic document reiterated the key terms of what was agreed upon in the meeting between the parties (Melvin, 2011, p. 155). With this all taking place, the two parties should be considered under contract. There are several areas within this contract that show both positive and negative facts for Chou within the terms of intent of contract. Some of the positive facts that work in favor for Chou are, there was a meeting that was concluded with an oral agreement, the follow up e mail from BTT with the key terms that were agreed upon, time that was spent between both parties acting under the contract guidelines, the fax requesting a draft for the contract. Some of the negative facts that work against Chou are, there were no signatures binding the contract, the 90 day deadline had passes with just the oral agreement, the negotiation agreement that stated that no contract would exist unless in writing, the wording in the e mail that Chou received had nothing that read the words contract.......

Words: 668 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Big Time Toymakers

...Big Time Toymakers Jessica Costin August 19, 2014 LAW/421 Ric Hedges Case Scenario Introduction Big Time Toymakers makes board games all over the world. Chou came to BTT with a deal that if Chou would let BTT distribute their game STRAT. BTT offered that they would give him 25,000 in exclusive negotiation rights for a three month period. The deal between BTT and Chou began when the time frame was set. The obligations between the two were made and the price that would be given was also established through the emails. Formation of a Contract “A contract is formed when an offer by one party is accepted by the other party” (Fitzroy Legal Service (2014). The first step to a contract is known as offer and acceptance. Therefore this means that an offer that has willingness between the parties that want to negotiate or make a deal. The second step is the intent to create legal relations, which means that just because two people have an agreement it does not mean that they have a contract. A contract is only made when parties are in an agreeance in a legal binding agreement. The third step is consideration which states “that the price paid for the promise of the other party”. (Fitzroy (2014). The price paid does not necessarily mean that it has to be money. The fourth step is to make sure that the people that are in this contract that they are in the right mind. This means that they are not minors, bankrupts, or people that are in jail. The fifth step is consent, which......

Words: 901 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Big Time Toymaker

...Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 Big Time Toymaker This paper will discuss the Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker along with the related questions and answers. Big Time Toymaker (BTT) is a company that specializes in board games and other toys. Their organization covers all aspects of this industry including developing, manufacturing, and distribution of board games and other toys. In this particular case scenario Big Time Toymaker was interested in a specific new strategy game called Strat invented by an individual named Chou (MELVIN, 2011). Big Time Toymaker paid Chou $25,000 for exclusive negotiation rights for a term of 90-days. Within the exclusive negotiation rights it stated that no distribution contract will exist until it’s in writing. Three days before the 90-day term ended both parties made an oral distribution agreement while in a meeting. After reaching this oral agreement Chou offered to draft a contract restating everything agreed upon orally. Before the contract was drafted by Chou, he received an e-mail from a BTT manger stating the key terms of the orally agreement, which include prices, time frames, and obligations expected of both parties (MELVIN, 2011). Chou neglected to daft a contract due to the content of the received e-mail and after some time received a fax requesting a copy of the drafted distribution agreement contract. Even though Chou delivered the contract immediately following the request several months went by......

Words: 674 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Law/421 Grocery, in Case Scenario

...Grocery, Inc. Case Scenarios Learning Team Law/421 Contemporary Business Law University of Phoenix November 2014 Grocery, Inc. Uniform Commercial Code UCC Merchant and Individual  The UCC does not provide for merchant and individual contract agreements. Contracts UCC and the Buyer  The UCC provides protection for the buyer.  Promote commercial efficiency by providing standardized procedures. Week_5 Learning Team "C" Case Scenario Grocery, Inc. 11/16/2014 2 Grocery, Inc. (Renovations) • • • • Hiring other companies to perform work Performance guarantee and expectations Delegation of duties Final outcome between Company A versus Company B in the Renovations dispute. Week_5 Learning Team "C" Case Scenario Grocery, Inc. 11/16/2014 3 Grocery, Inc. (Jeff) Jeff was 17 when he bought car Paid down payment and $200 for six months Lost job and went to dealer to cancel contract Week_5 Learning Team "C" Case Scenario Grocery, Inc. 11/16/2014 4 Grocery, Inc. (Jeff) • Dealership cannot enforce contract • Jeff can avoid contract • Dealership gets car • Jeff may owe more money • Jeff may recover some money Jeff is still 17 • Contract is enforceable • Dealership Jeff is keeps money now 18 • Jeff keeps car unless repossessed Week_5 Learning Team "C" Case Scenario Grocery, Inc. 11/16/2014 5 Grocery, Inc. (Cereal, Inc.) • Gap Filling Provisions of UCC Article 2 • Risk of loss stays with seller until......

Words: 447 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Law 421 Week 4 Big Time Toymaker

...this document of LAW 421 Week 4 Big Time Toymaker you will find the next information: 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 what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? 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 avoided? Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement? At the conclusion of the case, BTT declares that it's not thinking about distributing Chou’s new strategy game, Strat. Presuming BTT and Chou have got a deal, and BTT has breached the agreement by not distributing the game, discuss what remedies may or may not apply. General Questions - General General Questions 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......

Words: 362 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker

...intent to sign iii. Follow up fax after deadline asking for draft b. Not in favor iv. Exclusive negotiation agreement stated that everything had to be in writing, so the negotiations and email could be viewed as part of the negotiation, no the actual contract. v. Draft done after the 90 days. 3) E-mail did impact my analysis as BTT did use terms that could be interpreted differently and put them at risk of entering a legal contract. 4) Statue of fraud is important in this as it requires specific contracts to be in writing. In this case, the statue of fraud provision is met if the writing includes quantity, signature of party, and language that would allow a reasonable person to conclude both parties intend to form a contract. The e-mail that stating the price, the language showing intent to contract, and the e-mail signature could satisfy the statue of fraud. 5) BTT could try to avoid the contract under doctrine of mistake, but they may not have a great case. They could try to state that the terms in the e-mail they sent three days before the 90 days were up were used in error. BTT could also argue that the contract was drafted after the 90 days, however Chou could argue the e-mail was a written agreement. 6) After negotiating the terms, BTT sent an email with the terms of the distribution agreement where Chou took this as written confirmation that they move forward in the deal instead of him drafting a written copy.......

Words: 1001 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Big Time Toymaker

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Big Time Toymaker (BTT) granted Chou an agreement to a option contract. BTT pays Chou $25K to keep exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. Therefore, BTT purchased the rights to negotiate a distribution agreement for Chou’s invention (a board game). The agreement stipulated that at the end of the 90-day period, if the parties could not come to terms on a distribution deal. Chou would be free to enter into a contract with another distribution company and keeps the $25K. This is a valid enforceable oral contract between BTT and Chou. Upon close study, I do not believe that the parties concerned ever had a distribution agreement contract. The negotiation agreement specified that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. The two came to an oral agreement three days before the 90-day deadline. Immediately, following the meeting the BTT manager sent Chou an e-mail with “Strat Deal” in the subject line, reiterating the key terms of the oral distribution agreement in regard to price, time frames, and obligations of both parties (Melvin, 2011). However, there was no evidence to show that Chou ever accepted the offer via e-mail in accordance with the governing common law mailbox rule. Only an oral agreement was reached; with no legally binding draft and the signature of both parties present, no contract exists. 2. What facts may weigh in favor or against Chou......

Words: 588 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Big Time Toy Maker Case Scenario

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toy Maker LAW/421 May 5, 2015 Case Scenario: Big Time Toy Maker At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? The two parties, Big Time Toymaker and Chou entered into a contract when they came to the initial agreement where Big Time would pay $25,000 for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90 day period. What facts may weigh in favor or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The biggest factor in favor of Choe is that in the initial exclusive negotiation agreement, it was stated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. Even though Chou never drafted an actual contract, the manager of Big Time sent an email with all of the details of a contract to him. Since all four parts of a contract existed, this is a contract, even though the email did not say so. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact? The fact that the parties are communicating by email gives tangible proof to the agreement being made and proof of the 4 parts to a contract. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? The Statute of Frauds requires contracts to have signatures. If this contract is found to fall in this category, which it may since the value is over five hundred dollars, it may be found invalid. Now, depending on what state, the fact that both parties responded via e-mail, their name signed at the end may be considered an electronic......

Words: 521 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Bigtime Toymaker Law/421

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker In this scenario, Big Time Toymaker had entered into an option contract with Chou whereby they paid him $25,000 for exclusive negotiation rights for distribution of his strategy game for 90 days. This negotiation agreement stated that no contract existed unless it was in writing. Three days before the 90-day period was over, BTT and Chou reached a verbal agreement at a meeting. Chou was to draft the agreement, but a BTT manager sent an e-mail to him entitled “Strat Deal” that included all aspects of the agreed-upon contract. Chou believed this e-mail was to negate his drafting of the contract. A month passed before Chou was asked by BTT to fax a draft of the contract, which he immediately did. Several more months passed before BTT contacted him again to revoke the contract. This paper will attempt to point out why Chou has a case against BTT for contract enforcement. This type of contract is governed by state statutory law based on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Article 2, as it is a contract for the sale of goods. Generally, the contract would be considered unenforceable as it was stipulated by both parties in the original negotiation agreement that no contract existed unless it were in written form. The manager of BTT made a unilateral mistake according to the Doctrine of Mistake. He sent an e-mail outlining the terms of the contract and though it did not specifically contain the word......

Words: 1358 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker

...1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? After reading the scenario, Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou did partake in an oral contract. During a meeting between BTT and Chou an oral distribution agreement was reached, also an e-mail sent by BTT to Chou confirmed the key terms of the agreement reached during the meeting. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts in favor for Chou would oral agreement and email he received from BTT. The facts against Chou would be that there is never an actual written agreement drafted by Chou or the fact that Chou entered into an exclusive negotiation rights agreement for 90 days specifically stating, “No contract exists unless it is in writing.” Finally, no written agreement was turned in within the original 90-day period stipulated in the exclusive negotiation right. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? Yes, because the email represents the acknowledgment by both parties of the distribution agreement made in the meeting despite the e-mail failing to mention the word “contract.” 4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? The role of fraud applies to this scenario. “Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the statute of frauds applies to any contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more, and any lease transaction for......

Words: 385 - Pages: 2