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:

1) At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?

I don’t believe that there was a contract because even though there was an e-mail describing the contents of a draft of a contract, there were no signatures approving it.

2) What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?

Although BTT had made a large payment to Chau, the fact is that no written agreement was agreed on which works against Chau.

3)Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?

No. The fact that Chau and BTT were emailing each other is irrelevant to the existence of a contract, there were merely talking about it and never memorialized it in contract form.

4) What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?

This transaction had a value of over $500 and as such the UCC provisions could apply had the contract been in writing and had been accepted by both parties.

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? No, BTT could not avoid contract under the doctrine of mistake, or any other defense, because both parties believed the facts of the negotiation were accurate.

6) Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement? The $25,000 check issued by BTT and accepted by Chau supports the arguendo agreement and the fact the BTT asked Chau for a draft or preliminary contract.

At the end of the scenario, BTT states that it is not interested in