Big Time Toymaker (Essay Sample)

Big Time Toymaker
Name:
Institution affiliation

Introduction
Theory to Practice is a scenario featuring Big Time Toymaker commonly known by the acronym BTT. This company develops, manufactures, and finally distributes board games. The company was involved in an agreement with an independent inventor by the name Chou. Chou invented an innovative strategy game named Strat which he wanted BTT to distribute. However after over 90 days, BTT breached the agreement and it no longer valued distributing the Strata. Therefore, this literature seeks to establish whether there existed a contract between BTT and Chou, and also what remedies may escalate by answering the following questions.
At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
A contract is basically a written or verbal legal agreement involving two or more parties. Consequently, an agreement is either written or verbal legal contract involving two or more parties. For either an agreement or a contract to exist, there should be three main elements namely; the offer, an acceptance, and a consideration. With regard to provisions in the case, it is evident that both Chou and BTT had a meeting whereby an offer was made to Chou after which he was paid $25,000. Moreover, he accepted the exchange. Melvin (2011) claimed that “BTT was interested in distributing Strat and entered into an agreement with Chou whereby BTT paid him $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period” (P. 155). Owing to the above alluded facts, it is lucid to conclude that the provisions in the case constitute a legal contact.
What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
The following factors weigh in favor of Chou; [1] the e-mail by BTT’s manager undoubtedly indicates terms of distribution of a contract, and [2] BTT’s demand for the draft of the contract even after 30 days indicated that BTT actually intended to honor the deal at whatever time. However, facts against Chou are; [1] Chou never sent the draft of the contract as required, [2] Chou perceived that the e-mail sent to him by the manager covered for the draft and therefore the contract had been reached, and [3] he never acquired a dully signed writing indicating that the contract actually existed.
Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in question 1 and 2?
The e-mail by the manager does not affect my analysis for the first and second questions. This is because; it does not constitute elements of a contract for a number of reasons namely; [1] it was fundamentally part of the whole negotiation process which Chou failed to honor by not drafting the contract, [2] the e-mail lacked a signature and therefore it lacked authenticity with regard to the requirements by statute of frauds, [3] the email was sent by a manger and not a chef executive officer of the company.
What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
Statute of Frauds is a legal requirement demanding that certain forms of contracts be covered under signed writing as evidence for the contract (Blum, 2007). Since the contract involved a definite duration, the Statute of Frauds fundamentally seeks to establish whether or not all the protocols involving contracts were followed in order for proper ruling to be reached.
Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow contract to be avoided?
BTT cannot avoid the contract under the doctrine of mistakes largely because; the contract was voluntarily agreed upon by both BTT and Chou. Moreover, the parties were adequately competent with ea...