Although it is clear that there was never a written statement between the two parties, one can conclude that at least a verbal contract was created. This is derived from the fact that Big Time Toymaker paid Chou $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. Since the value of the transaction was over the minimum requirement of $500, UCC provisions are applicable.

During this exclusive agreement, the two parties agreed to hold exclusive rights to each other for a period of 90 days. This agreement concluded that no distribution contracted existed unless it was in writing. After the period of 90 days, the agreement was void and no longer in place. Chou received the e-mail stating “Strat Deal” which clearly identified terms, price, time frames, and obligations for both parties. However, this email was solely used to highlight the key points within the deal and did not constitute a contract. In order for the statute of frauds to take place there would need to be a written agreement with signatures from parties involved and any relevant evidence. If a distribution contract was in place then this would bind both parties to an agreement to be enforced by a governing authority.

In this scenario, it is important to identify lack of communication as one of the primary factors leading to the confusion. Besides that, BTT failed to follow up accordingly with Chou to ensure all contracts had been fulfilled. During a doctrine of mistake, a contract is voided due to the misunderstanding and failed communication of the parties within the contract. However, in order for this to occur both parties must come to an agreement voluntarily. Since a contract was never intact, then there would be no plausible cause for a doctrine of mistake. In order for this to occur, both parties must come to a reasonable agreement of misunderstanding.

The communication