Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Essay

1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a select?Our textbook defines a contract as a promise or a set of promises enforceable by law (). A contract does not necessarily has to be in opus. A contract can be oral and enforceable. boastful cartridge clip Toymaker and Chou took part in an oral contract. giant Time Toy Maker and Chou held a meeting where an oral dissemination pledge was reached. In addition, Big Time Toy sent an email to Chou confirming the agreement.2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract?The facts that may weigh in favor of Chow are the exclusive dialogue rights for a 90-day period, the oral agreement that was reached at the meeting and the email he received from Big Time Toy. The facts against Chou would be that there is neer an actual scripted agreement tippleed by Chou. In addition, the exclusive dialogue rights agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it w as in composition. Finally, no pen agreement was turned in within the original 90-day period stipulated in the exclusive negotiation right agreement.3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?Yes, because the email represents the acknowledgment by both parties of the distribution agreement made in the meeting despite the e-mail failing to intimate the word contract. In addition, the subject line of the email read Strat smokestack and it explained in detail the price, time frames, and obligations. Also, as soon as Big Time Toy sent a fax to Chow requesting the draft of the contract, he faxed it to them immediately.4. What role does the codified of frauds play in this contract?The regulation of fraud is the law governing which contracts must be in paperin order to be enforceable (Melvin, 2010). The role of fraud applies to this scenario. The mandate of frauds refers to the requirement that certa in kinds of contracts be memorialized in a signed writing with sufficient content to evidence the contract. Traditionally, the statute of frauds requires a signed writing in the following circumstances. A defendant in a statute of frauds case who wishes to use the Statute as a defense must raise it in a timely manner. The burden of proving that a written contract exists only comes into play when a Statute of Frauds defense is brocaded by the defendant. A defendant who admits the existence of the contract in his pleadings, at a lower place oath in a deposition or affidavit, or at trial, may not use the defense under the Uniform mercantile Code (UCC), however under common law they may stillness use it.