Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Big Time Toymaker Essay
The theory to practice scenario between Big Time Toymaker and kale in my opinion entered into a beget in two split up occasions. The first eon was the literal agreement Big Time Toymaker (BTT) make with Chou three long time before the 90 day stay ended and then on that point was the email Chou received that gave him the terms, time frame, price and obligations at this point Chou felt that there was an demonstrable contract. The one fact that could help Chou in this case is that he has an email to prove that there was some sort of intent there from BTT regarding a contract. On the other hand the one thing that whitethorn count against Chou is that he never received anything in writing, which would be the real contract. The fact that both parties were communicating by email does adjoin my analysis.Companies send emails to one another all the time discussing terms and agreements and the fact that they had spoken and made a prior agreement verbally counts as the initial agre ement and the email would be follow up. A contract consists of all parties that are involved to let a signature and if they verbal agreement would not have taken place before the email then my decision would be different. I feel that Chou has the serious to feel that he was entering into a contract with BTT but should have followed up for a written contract. The role of fraud has played a role in this scenario according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the exchange of goods for more than $500.00 and any lease transaction for goods of $1000.00 or more (Melvin,2011).In this scenario Chou received $25,000.00 in exchange for the negotiation rights for 90 days from BTT. This is not a mistake under the doctrine of mistake because in order for this to take place there would need to be a unilateral mistake made in the contract and there was not one and neither was there an actual written contract. If there was an actual contract there could have been laws applied towards strict liab ility as well. For the sake of argument assuming that the email served as a adapted contract then BTT was in breach of the contract. BTT was in breach by not distributing the game as they agreed. With BTT breaching the contract Chou can stress compensation for any damages and any loss.