...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Ana Corral Law421 November 25, 2013 Michael John 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...
Words: 1172 - Pages: 5
...Vennessa Miller Law421 Professor Nikki Chtaini Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker November 11, 2013 There was contract. What they put together was an agreement in an email. Three days before the expiration of the 90 day period the parties reached an oral distribution agreement at a meeting. Then later a draft agreement contract was sent. The fact that may weigh in favor of Chou is that he has the email that he sent and when he sent the email but on the other hand what may not work in his favor is because both signature is not on the agreement. Yes it does because they do have a source of correspondence to one another. None, since it is a services contract for distribution rights. The Statute of Frauds only comes into play if it is a goods contract. If it is believed by the judge to be a goods agreement then the written requirement, the all terms included requirement and the signed by the sender all have been met by the email with its automatic signature of the manager representing BTT. BTT could not avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake because there was no mistake the received an email about the agreement that was made between both parties. The only thing that would help is because they did not sign the agreement so it can be avoided Chou would value by having his product dispersed for sale throughout the network of retail that BTT as a board game company had at their disposal. BTT would profit by laying the blame on their cut for dispensing the...
Words: 414 - Pages: 2
