Amanda Persico

Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker

1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
The parties had an oral contract when BTT and Chou agreed on an oral distribution agreement three days before the 90-day period had expired.

2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
The facts that would weigh in favor for Chou were the meeting that took place 3 days prior to the 90-day expiration period, the e-mail received from BTT outlining terms that were agreed upon in the meeting, and the fax that BTT sent to Chou requesting a distribution contract. The facts that would weigh against Chou were that he never had anything signed and in stone. Oral agreements happen every day, but to ensure validity, always get it in writing.

3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 & 2 (above)?
The e-mails did help in my analysis, however, they may help Chou when making his case, but, because there was no official contract, winning on Chou’s side is not probable.

4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
The statute of frauds plays a huge role in this theory. If Chou would have gotten everything that was agreed upon orally in writing, then maybe Chou would have been properly paid and contracted. Because he did not get everything in writing, and an e-mail does not constitute this in my opinion, he has lost his advantage.

5. 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?
BTT could avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake. There was never a signed contract by both parties that ensured the carrying out of the details that were orally discussed. I do not