LAW 421 Big Time Toymaker

SAMPLE

There are a few facts that weigh in favor of Chou. First, three days prior to the end of the 90 day exclusive negotiation rights agreement, they reached an oral agreement and then shortly thereafter, a business email from a BTT management representative was sent to Chou with the specifics of the agreement. The email stated "that all of the terms had been agreed upon." BTT also subsequently requested Chou send them a draft distribution contract regurgitating the specifics of agreement spelled out in the email from the BBT manager. Finally, distribution of Strat would have exceeded the 500.00 limit of the Statute of Frauds. The fact that may weigh against Chou is that the contract never had a wet signature.

DOWNLOAD TO SEE COMPLETE ESSAY

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

2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of parties' objective intent to contract?

3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by email have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 above?

4. What role does the Statute of Frauds play in this contract?

5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake?

5.2 Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided?

1. Assuming, arguendo, that this email does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?