Big Time ToymakerLAW/421
RUNNING HEAD: BIG TIME TOYMAKER
BIG TIME TOYMAKER
Big Time ToymakerAccording to the scenario, Big Time Toymaker (BTT) paid $25,000 to Chou for "exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period" (Melvin, 2011 p. 155). In the agreement, the parties indicated that there was not a contract unless there was a distribution contract in writing. Three days before the agreement expired the parties verbally agreed to the distribution agreement but there was not a written contract as agreed upon in the initial agreement. The email only expresses the agreement from the prior meeting however; there were not any signatures to make the agreement a valid contract.The fact that may weigh in favor for Chou is the he was paid $25,000 by BTT for the exclusive right to the board game. The payment could cause Chou to believe there was the intent to enter into a legal binding contract with BTT. The facts that weight against Chou is there was the oral agreement made three days before the 90-day period was over and there was not a written agreement with in the allotted timeframe. There were several emails between the parties with a draft of the term however, several months passed and new management took over BTT. The new management was not interested in the distribution of the Strat board game.The agreement between Chou and BTT was sent via email. Email traffic is a form of communication and not a written signed contract. Both parties simply expressed the intent to enter into a contract but there was not a written contract. The fact that the parties were communicating by email does not influence the decision...