...Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 Big Time Toymaker This paper will discuss the Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker along with the related questions and answers. Big Time Toymaker (BTT) is a company that specializes in board games and other toys. Their organization covers all aspects of this industry including developing, manufacturing, and distribution of board games and other toys. In this particular case scenario Big Time Toymaker was interested in a specific new strategy game called Strat invented by an individual named Chou (MELVIN, 2011). Big Time Toymaker paid Chou $25,000 for exclusive negotiation rights for a term of 90-days. Within the exclusive negotiation rights it stated that no distribution contract will exist until it’s in writing. Three days before the 90-day term ended both parties made an oral distribution agreement while in a meeting. After reaching this oral agreement Chou offered to draft a contract restating everything agreed upon orally. Before the contract was drafted by Chou, he received an e-mail from a BTT manger stating the key terms of the orally agreement, which include prices, time frames, and obligations expected of both parties (MELVIN, 2011). Chou neglected to daft a contract due to the content of the received e-mail and after some time received a fax requesting a copy of the drafted distribution agreement contract. Even though Chou delivered the contract immediately following the request several months went by without...
Words: 674 - Pages: 3
...Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Name Law/421 Date Instructor Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Was There a Contract In the scenario regarding Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and the inventor Chou BTT did grant Chou a binding option to enter into a contract at a later date. This binding contract is known as an option contract and offered the inventor $25 thousand to keep an offer open in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights during a period of time not to exceed 90 days. Essentially this option means that Big Time Toymaker purchased the rights to negotiate a distribution agreement for Chou’s invention. In this option contract prior to the end of the 90 day period if BTT and Chou could not reach an agreement on distribution then Chou would be free to enter into a contract with other business distributors while keeping the $25 thousand. This option contract is in fact a valid and enforceable contract between the two parties. Facts that weight in favor of or against Chou There are several factors that if considered weigh in favor of Chou. When Big Time Toymaker paid Chou $25 thousand for exclusive negotiation rights for his invention, Chou had a reasonable expectation that the toy company had the intent of reaching a distribution agreement. The meeting held between BTT and Chou concluded with an oral agreement and was followed up with an e-mail from the company’s manager solidifying the expectation of intent as well as specifying key terms within the agreement. Big Time Toymakers...
Words: 982 - Pages: 4
...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Students Name LAW/421 Date Due Instructors Name Big Time Toymaker (BTT) is a company that develops, manufactures, and distributes board games and other toys to the U.S, Mexico, and Canada. Chou is the inventor of a new strategy game he named Strat. Big Time Toymaker and Chou entered into an agreement whereby Chou would receive $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. The agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. This paper will explain if Big Time Toymaker and Chou had an enforceable contract and any remedies they may use. Big Time Toymaker and Chou entered in a verbal contract when both parties negotiated the terms of BTT paying Chou $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. The parties had an oral agreement at the conclusion of their meeting, and this converted into written contract when BTT sent the email confirming that all essential contract terms had been met. This email provides evidence of BTT’s objective intent to be bound by the terms of their agreement, and we know Chou intended to be bound since he is the one seeking to enforce their agreement. The facts that weigh in favor of Chou would be the e-mail that contains all the terms of the agreement. Technically it is in writing and that was the only clause in their verbal arrangement. The facts that weigh against Chou would be that the e-mailed was not signed by either...
Words: 635 - Pages: 3
...Big Time Toymaker Jean Augustin Law/421 October 1, 2012 Thomas Wilson Abstract Big Time Toymaker (BTT) agreement with Cho for extension of exclusive distribution rights is being challenged due to a lack of written agreement. BTT reached an oral agreement which is not binding due to the stipulations in their original agreement, which states that all contracts must be in writing. Both parties have communicated the terms of the distribution agreements via email and fax, after a change in management at BTT, Cho’s verbal agreement fax, and email communications are being challenged and are not recognized as a binding contract by BTT. Case Scenario Big Time Toymaker Determining the legitimacy or the point where both parties entered into an agreement will determine if the contract is valid or unenforceable. In this scenario both parties have an oral agreement, which took place before the 90 day expiration period. According to Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) a contract can be enforced based on a larger picture that consists of (1) past commercial conduct, (2) correspondence or verbal exchanges between the parties, and (3) industry standards and norms (MELVIN, 2012, p. 182). The question is, are the agreements enforceable since both a verbal and a written agreement exists. Contract established Big Time Toymaker sent Chou a drafted agreement, the email displayed the terms of the contract, and the title of the email read ”Strat Deal”; to a reasonable person this can be construed...
Words: 861 - Pages: 4
...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker LaTeisha Allen LAW/421 March 9, 2015 Professor Angela Beetem Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Both parties, Big Chou and Big Time Toymaker, entered a verbal contract which was created to the distributing a game strategy created by Chou. This contract is considered valid in that both parties were clear and met the contract requirements which a follow-up email was sent to Chou that outlined the details of what was agreed upon verbally. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract? There are several factors that weigh in favor of Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to the contract. First, BTT demonstrated the intent to enter a contract with Chou by offering to pay $25,000 for the exclusive distribution rights. Second, the email sent to Chou by BTT is evidence that the company was trying to solidify their oral agreement in writing. Lastly, is that Chou never secured a contract in writing with BTT. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 – 2? Absolutely, the fact that both parties were communicating through email makes this situation complicated. However, it is possible to enter a written agreement via email. Considering that Chou responded via email to BTT after their oral agreement had been reached will most definitely hold significant weight in...
Words: 528 - Pages: 3
...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker The Stipulation Big Time Toymaker is a board games and toys manufacturer. The company distributes products in the Americas and Canada. A strategic game called Strat was invented by Chou, and BTT made an offer to have his exclusivity for the amount of $25,000 for 90 days as long as both parties agreed and a written agreement is drawn up. The Agreement Initially, both parties have agreed to lay down a contract prior to the 90-day phase subsequent to the oral agreement addressed at the negotiation. Part of this agreement included a proviso that no distribution contract shall materialize unless the contact was done in writing. An e-mail sent by BTT manager illustrating pertinent aspects of the agreement. The message covered the timetable, pricing, and responsibilities contingent of both parties, which was a form of an agreement to a certain extent. Intent to Contract The e-mail and the payment to Chou was an indicator of intent to contract. Chou misconstrued the proposed correspondence as an alternate for the written contract, because it encompassed the attributes that would have been identifiable to the initial stated agreement. Despite Chou’s wrongful assertion on the contract, there is a clear indication that both parties have agreed to move forward with the transaction. According to the contract law, assent is “a conscious approval or confirmation of facts” (Melvin, 201, p.130), and the meeting of minds is voluntarily and communally...
Words: 756 - Pages: 4
...Big Time Toymaker April 13, 2015 Big Time Toymaker Big Time Toymaker is an industry leading toy company that manufactures, develops and distributes board games and other toys to the United States, Mexico, and Canada (Melvin, 2011 p. 155). This assignment allowed us to witness first hand a deal for a product that could of made the inventor very wealthy. Although this was not the case, this assignment taught us various lessons in business law and communication. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Based on the information provided in “Theory to Practice” the parties officially had a contract three days before the 90-day period when a BTT manager sent Chou the “Strat Deal” email. This email repeated the key terms of the distribution agreement; it included the obligations of both parties, price and time frames. The email stated that al the terms had been agreed upon (Melvin, 2011 p. 155). It was normal for Chou to assume that this email replaced the earlier notion of him drafting the contract with the same information mentioned in the e-mail. Assuming he did not clarify this with the BTT Manager who emailed him, he should have taken the initiative in confirming this. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contrast? The biggest fact to weigh in favor of Chou is the $25,00 he was paid by BTT in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights. Because BTT can’t go back and say they paid him the $25...
Words: 1002 - Pages: 5
...Running head: BIG TIME TOYMAKER Big Time Toymaker Name University Big Time Toymaker Paper A contract is an agreement between two parties that is enforceable in court. In order to have a valid contract, there are several criteria that must be met that will be explained throughout this analysis. A verbal or written agreement may result in a binding contract if the required contract criteria are met (Melvin, 2011). Contracts are put in place to protect both parties on either end of the agreement. A Big Time Toymaker (BTT) was interested in a new game that was invented by Chou. BTT entered into an agreement with Chou for exclusive rights to his inventory for a 90-day period at the cost of $25,000. This paper will discuss some pros and cons of a contract, if and when a contract should apply to a situation, and some remedies for a breach of contract. The Background of the Contract BTT and Chou made an exclusive negotiation agreement for a 90-day period. This agreement had stipulations that a contract had to be in writing within this period. Before the expiration of this period, the parties reached an oral agreement in a meeting followed by an e-mail from BTT to Chou repeating their oral agreement on paper. This electronic document reiterated the key terms of what was agreed upon in the meeting between the parties (Melvin, 2011, p. 155). With areas agreed upon, the parties should be considered under contract. Positive and Negative Facts of Agreement There are several areas...
Words: 1061 - Pages: 5
...Running head: BIG TIME TOYMAKER Big Time Toymaker Silvia Robinson University of Phoenix November 12, 2013 Big Time Toymaker At what point, if ever, get the parties have a contract? The company BTT entered an agreement with Chou. BTT paid Chou a total of 25,000 for exclusive negotiation rights for an 90 day period. During this time they had and contract between the parties for 90 days,. I believe this would be considered an oral agreement. If I recall correctly and an agreement can be a binding contract whether it is an oral or written agreement between two parties. In this case there was an oral agreement may either by the two parties. An written contract was being drawn up but never completed due to misinterpretation and poor communication sent by an email/fax received by Chou from BTT. BTT produced no follow-up or follow through in this matter. This was a paid contract money was given in return for negotiation rights of distribution. This did not mean What the facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract? I believe the fact that BTT paid Chou 25,000 dollars for the negation of distribution right, also that BTT sent an email It is normal now a day to do business communications via emails and faxes. The emails and faxes can be made binding in a court of law. “Strat Deal” indicating that they agreed with the terms of the distribution agreement including the price, time frame, and obligations. Although the...
Words: 803 - Pages: 4
...421 Week 4 Big Time Toymaker you will find the next information: Read the “Theory to Practice” section at the end of Ch. 6 of the text. Answer Questions 1 through 6 based on the scenario in the “Theory to Practice” section, and complete the following in your response: 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? Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided? Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement? At the conclusion of the case, BTT declares that it's not thinking about distributing Chou’s new strategy game, Strat. Presuming BTT and Chou have got a deal, and BTT has breached the agreement by not distributing the game, discuss what remedies may or may not apply. General Questions - General General Questions Read the “Theory to Practice” section at the end of Ch. 6 of the text. Answer Questions 1 through 6 based on the scenario in the “Theory to Practice” section,...
Words: 372 - Pages: 2
...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Big Time Toymaker (BTT) granted Chou an agreement to a option contract. BTT pays Chou $25K to keep exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. Therefore, BTT purchased the rights to negotiate a distribution agreement for Chou’s invention (a board game). The agreement stipulated that at the end of the 90-day period, if the parties could not come to terms on a distribution deal. Chou would be free to enter into a contract with another distribution company and keeps the $25K. This is a valid enforceable oral contract between BTT and Chou. Upon close study, I do not believe that the parties concerned ever had a distribution agreement contract. The negotiation agreement specified that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. The two came to an oral agreement three days before the 90-day deadline. Immediately, following the meeting the BTT manager sent Chou an e-mail with “Strat Deal” in the subject line, reiterating the key terms of the oral distribution agreement in regard to price, time frames, and obligations of both parties (Melvin, 2011). However, there was no evidence to show that Chou ever accepted the offer via e-mail in accordance with the governing common law mailbox rule. Only an oral agreement was reached; with no legally binding draft and the signature of both parties present, no contract exists. 2. What facts may weigh in favor or against Chou in...
Words: 588 - Pages: 3
...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Big Time Toymaker (BTT) granted Chou a binding option to enter a contract, known as an option contract. BTT (offeror) pays Chou (offeree) $25K to keep an offer open in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. Therefore, BTT purchased the rights to negotiate a distribution agreement for Chou’s invention (a board game). The agreement stipulated that at the end of the 90-day period, if the parties could not come to terms on a distribution deal. Chou would be free to enter into a contract with another distribution company and keeps the $25K. This is a valid enforceable oral contract between BTT and Chou. Upon close study, I do not believe that the parties concerned ever had a distribution agreement contract. The negotiation agreement specified that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. The two came to an oral agreement three days before the 90-day deadline. Immediately, following the meeting the BTT manager sent Chou an e-mail with “Strat Deal” in the subject line, reiterating the key terms of the oral distribution agreement in regard to price, time frames, and obligations of both parties (Melvin, 2011). However, there was no evidence to show that Chou ever accepted the offer via e-mail in accordance with the governing common law mailbox rule. Only an oral agreement was reached; with no legally binding draft and the signature of both parties...
Words: 602 - Pages: 3
...421 Week 4 Big Time Toymaker you will find the next information: Read the “Theory to Practice” section at the end of Ch. 6 of the text. Answer Questions 1 through 6 based on the scenario in the “Theory to Practice” section, and complete the following in your response: 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? Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided? Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement? At the conclusion of the case, BTT declares that it's not thinking about distributing Chou’s new strategy game, Strat. Presuming BTT and Chou have got a deal, and BTT has breached the agreement by not distributing the game, discuss what remedies may or may not apply. General Questions - General General Questions Read the “Theory to Practice” section at the end of Ch. 6 of the text. Answer Questions 1 through 6 based on the scenario in the “Theory to Practice” section,...
Words: 362 - Pages: 2
...Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 September 25, 2014 Phillip Muir - University of Phoenix Big Time Toymaker BTT and Chou made an exclusive negotiation agreement for a 90 day period. There were specific stipulations that a written agreement must be in affect and signed within this time frame. Both parties had reached an oral agreement before the 90 day expiration had occurred and also had contacted each other through an e mail repeating the terms of the oral agreement on paper. This electronic document reiterated the key terms of what was agreed upon in the meeting between the parties (Melvin, 2011, p. 155). With this all taking place, the two parties should be considered under contract. There are several areas within this contract that show both positive and negative facts for Chou within the terms of intent of contract. Some of the positive facts that work in favor for Chou are, there was a meeting that was concluded with an oral agreement, the follow up e mail from BTT with the key terms that were agreed upon, time that was spent between both parties acting under the contract guidelines, the fax requesting a draft for the contract. Some of the negative facts that work against Chou are, there were no signatures binding the contract, the 90 day deadline had passes with just the oral agreement, the negotiation agreement that stated that no contract would exist unless in writing, the wording in the e mail that Chou received had nothing that read the words contract. Although...
Words: 668 - Pages: 3
...Big Time Toymaker Ronda Bonny LAW/421 AUGUST 13, 2012 JAMES ZACCARIA Big Time Toymaker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? After reading the case scenario, I do not believe either of the two parties involved ever established a binding distribution contract. It is true an oral distribution agreement was achieved just three days prior to the 90-day deadline, which was a condition established in the original negotiating contract. However, as clearly stated in the original negotiating contract, there is not to be a distribution agreement, or contract, unless it is in writing. After the meeting, Chou volunteered to draft the distribution contract that would formalize their agreement. However, before Chou could finish the draft, he received an e-mail from the BTT manager. The e-mail with the subject line “Strat Deal,” focused on the key points of the distribution agreement between both parties, including the price, time frames, and obligations of both parties. After receiving this e-mail, Chou incorrectly assumed that BTT wanted to draft the contract. Thus Chou stopped working on the draft and a month passed by. This passage of time voided any previous agreement because of the 90-day clause to finalize the contract. What BTT and Chou had was not a binding or enforceable contract. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts that prove there was no binding distribution contract...
Words: 734 - Pages: 3
