Theory to Practice "Big Time Toymaker"Georga A. SmithLAW/421August 5, 2014Eric Nord
Running head: THEORY TO PRACTICE "BIG TIME TOYMAKER"
THEORY TO PRACTICE "BIG TIME TOYMAKER"
Theory to Practice "Big Time Toymaker"In this report, it will answer several questions base on the case scenario of "Big Time Toymaker". The report will discuss at what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract? Douse the fact that the parties were communicating by email have any impact on this analysis. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? Could BTT avoid this contract under ...view middle of the document...
Facts that weigh against Chou: The negotiation agreement stated that no contract exists unless it is in writing No signature to bind the contract. The 90-day deadline passed with only an oral agreement. The word "contract" has left off the e-mail received from the BTT manager Chou failed to draft a distribution agreement contract until BTT sent a fax requesting that he do so. This was a month passed the 90-day deadline.Under common law agreements, the statute of frauds applies when a statute of frauds specifically calls for a signature of the party against whom the enforcement of a contract sought. Although the mailbox rule comes into effect and states that the acceptance of an offer is generally effective upon dispatch using a commercially reasonable manner, such as mail, fax, or e-mail. However, in this case it seems that Chou never replied to BTT's e-mail, declaring agreement of terms and conditions. An e-mail reply from Chou would have satisfied the statute of frauds requirement of a signed contract in the state of California. Furthermore, the statute of frauds in common law applies to service contracts that cannot perform, by its terms within a year's time.The fact that both parties were communicating via email will just show that both...