Big Time Toy Maker

Law / 421

Big Time Toy Maker
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
Yes, both parties had a valid contract when they agreed upon the terms of the deal. They both agreed upon the terms and Chou accepted the twenty five thousand dollars from Big Time Toymaker. A written agreement was not needed due to BTT being only a distributer and not a producer.

2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
Chou was paid twenty five thousand dollars by BTT for the negotiation rights to his house board game. This could have given Chou the impression that the contract was finalized. This would be considered a bilateral contract due to two promises and two performances. BTT would perform by distributing the product but would first promise to pay the twenty five thousand dollars. Chou promised to sell the negotiation rights and the performance was to turn them over to BTT for twenty five thousand dollars.

3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in
Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
Since both parties were communicating through email, it does not have an impact on my analysis because of the factors stated earlier of a binding contract. The emails do reinforce the contract in the courts.

4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
The statue of fraud applies to a sale of goods above 500 dollars. Since this contract was in excess of twenty five thousand dollars, it could fall under the statue of frauds. But, because the statue of frauds requires both parties to sign the contract, and neither of the parties signed a contract, this will ultimately be unenforceable.

5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would