1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
I do not believe the parties had a contract at any point. Although the e-mail showed the intent to contract, it was not formed as a contract and neither party signed in agreement.

2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
The fact that an oral agreement was reached at a meeting and an e-mail stating the intent to contract was sent may weigh in favor for Chou but the fact that a written contract was never drawn nor signed weighs against Chou.

3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
The fact that the parties were communicating through e-mail does have an effect on my analysis because it showed a written intent to contract however no actual contract was signed and agreed upon by both parties.

4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
The statute of frauds does not play any role in this contract because it requires a signed writing for contracts for the sale of goods totaling $500 or more and no signed contract existed in this case.

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 avoided?
BTT could avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake because Chou could have mistaken the e-mail as a contract. In this case, no written signed contract existed, therefore there was no contract.

6. Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?
Assuming arguendo, the e-mail may constitute an agreement because it showed an intent to contract, however, there was no signed written