Theory To Practice

Theory to Practice

Big Time Toymaker paid Chou $25,000 for negotiation rights for the game Strat and the term given is 90 days. Chou believed this to be a verbal and written agreement because of the payment. Independently alone is an agreement, and second there is an oral agreement that the game will not be distributed or shown to anyone else during the 90 day period. Chou believed there is a set contract is viable after receiving the e-mail specifying price, time frames, and obligations of both parties (Overview and Formation of Contracts). Factors going against Chou for continuation with BTT acceptance and distribution of the game are no signed contract between Chou and BTT and Chou allowing a substantial amount of time to lapse before BTT contacted Chou again through fax. The fact both parties were communicating through e-mail, faxes, and in person in the beginning allows for the belief in having a viable contract.

Frauds

Statute of frauds comes into play because Chou did not reply to the initial e-mail. Because the subject line was "Strat Deal", the Statute of Frauds is satisfied because BTT sent the e-mail within the 90 day period, and the sale of goods exceeds $500.00. Common law could come into play for this scenario for either party because the service contract was not performed by either party, depending upon which party wishes to pursue or not. Chou can continue finalizing the deal to have his game distributed by BTT since Chou received $25,000.00 in good faith. BTT also can pursue or ignore under common law because the 90 day period passed without Chou finalizing the agreement on paper.

Doctrine of Mistake

BTT changed their minds after internal management changes and even because of this, and there is no mistake. There is nothing on paper showing an error on their (BTT) part because of the change of heart. Both parties could come to an agreement after the fact if BTT is still willing to partake in the distribution process of Chou's game. Although this still can mean there is no avoidance of contract and BTT cannot avoid the contract because of Chou's lack of response to the first e-mail. Chou