Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Big Time Toymaker and Chou entered into an agreement, in exchange for negotiation rights over a 90 day period BTT paid Chou $25,000. Even though BTT and Chou had an agreement from the very beginning they did not have a contract until one of the BTT managers sent Chou the included all the key terms of the agreement. Chou was supposed to be the one to draft the agreement before he could get to it he received an email from BTT that stated everything the two parties had agreed upon such as the price, time frame, and what each party was obligated to do. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? There are several facts that weight in favor of Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract. For one BTT mislead Chou by paying $25,000 for the negotiation rights of Strat over the agreed upon time period and they did not live up to their part of the agreement. BTT also waited to end the agreement just three days before the agreement would have ended and BTT failed to respond back to Chou after they drafted the contract. Since Big Time Toymaker did not respond back to Chou it makes it seem like they were trying to stall until the 90 was over. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? The fact that the two parties were communicating by e-mail does have an impact on the situation. Communicating by e-mail is a valid form of communication and it is even recognized in the court of law. That is why I look at the e-mail that the BTT manager sent as a written agreement or contract because it contained all the key