Big Time Toymaker

In: Business and Management

Submitted By callb
Words 972
Pages 4
Chou and BTT had a lot of verbal agreements and a lot of different terms that they were each abiding by during the time that they were talking about the business situation. BTT wanted to make sure that Chou would let them try out his game and he had no problem with that, and signed a 90 day trail period in which BTT would be able to test the game, and do whatever they could to see if the game was worth selling so that they could maybe go into a distribution contract with Chou and distribute the game to the customers in which they target. Chou and BTT both came to an agreement so that BTT would be able to distribute Chou's game but at the same time they did not ever enter into a contract and this was a mistake on both Chou's and BTT's side. Neither one of these two ever made the proper effort to make sure that this went into place and that they each got what they were looking for out of everything. When BTT and Chou both decided that they would go into a distribution contract and BTT would be able to distribute Chou's game to the people that they wanted to target with this game. BTT and Chou only verbally came to agreement in how the distribution contract would go and with this is where everything got messed up in the mix and neither one of the two followed up with an actual contract. Chou agreed that he would write up the contract and make sure that BTT received it and everything would go from there. Before Chou could get the contract taken care of BTT sent out a draft to Chou which covered the exact things that they spoke about in the meeting. When Chou received this draft he though that it would cover everything that they spoke about in the meeting and would not need to make the contract draft himself. A while after Chou got the email he also received a fax stating that he would need to send over the contract agreement as soon as possible so that BTT could…...

Similar Documents

Big Time Toymaker

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Big Time Toymaker a developer manufacturer and distributor of board games and toys recently collaborated with and an inventor named Chou. Chou invented a strategy game called Strat, which requires a distributor. Chou entered into an agreement with Big Time for $25.000 and in return, Chou granted Big Time the exclusive negotiation rights for 90 days. During that time, Big Time honored the agreement, but three days shy of the expiration date, a Big Time manager forwarded a drafted agreement via e-mail, which covered the terms of the agreement. Chou received and responded to the draft in agreement with the terms; however, Big Time did not respond and months later Big Time was no longer interested( Melvin, 2011). The proposed contract existed immediately following the agreement to exclusive rights. The contract from that point was valid for 90 days following the agreement, which obstructed Chou’s ability to negotiate with other distribution outlets. The elements, which validate a contracts formation consist of an offer, BTT offered $25,000 to Chou for exclusive negotiation rights, acceptance Chou accepted the offer and monetary compensation, and finally the consideration for BTT exclusive negotiation rights to the game and Chou $25,000 (Melvin, 2011). The Big Time Toymaker manager drafted an agreement before Chou took initiative; therefore, based on the manager’s initiative resulting in labeling the e-mail with Strat Deal, insertion of key......

Words: 902 - Pages: 4

Big Time Toymaker

...Big Time Toymaker Jean Augustin Law/421 October 1, 2012 Thomas Wilson Abstract Big Time Toymaker (BTT) agreement with Cho for extension of exclusive distribution rights is being challenged due to a lack of written agreement. BTT reached an oral agreement which is not binding due to the stipulations in their original agreement, which states that all contracts must be in writing. Both parties have communicated the terms of the distribution agreements via email and fax, after a change in management at BTT, Cho’s verbal agreement fax, and email communications are being challenged and are not recognized as a binding contract by BTT. Case Scenario Big Time Toymaker Determining the legitimacy or the point where both parties entered into an agreement will determine if the contract is valid or unenforceable. In this scenario both parties have an oral agreement, which took place before the 90 day expiration period. According to Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) a contract can be enforced based on a larger picture that consists of (1) past commercial conduct, (2) correspondence or verbal exchanges between the parties, and (3) industry standards and norms (MELVIN, 2012, p. 182). The question is, are the agreements enforceable since both a verbal and a written agreement exists. Contract established Big Time Toymaker sent Chou a drafted agreement, the email displayed the terms of the contract, and the title of the email read ”Strat Deal”; to a reasonable person this can be......

Words: 861 - Pages: 4

Big Time Toymaker

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Big Time Toymaker and Chou did have a contract at the point when Chou accepted $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights of the game called Strat. Since the exclusive negotiation agreement stated that no distribution agreement was in place, unless in writing, there was no official distribution agreement between the parties. Although there was no written agreement, the email sent by a BTT manager could be considered by a court to be evidence of intent to consent to a distribution agreement between the parties. This may work in favor of Chou. Conversely, the use of multiple types of communication methods used by Chou and BTT may work against Chou. A court could rule that too many details were not solidified. The state in which the two companies operate may also require, via Statute of Frauds, that certain agreements be made in writing and be signed by both parties. The fact that the parties were communicating by email does impact my analysis of the situation. I believe that the email sent by a BTT manager evidences the parties’ intent to form an agreement with Chou. The Statute of Frauds plays into this contract and may be used by a court to rule in favor of BTT. The statute of frauds governs which contracts must be in writing in order to be consider enforceable. Under this statue, a signature by both parties is required. Also, a contract involving the sale of goods in any amount greater than $500 must be made in......

Words: 464 - Pages: 2

Big Time Toymaker

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Read the “Theory to Practice” section at the end of Ch. 6 of the text. Answer Questions 1 through 6 based on the scenario in the “Theory to Practice” section, and complete the following in your response: • At the end of the scenario, BTT states that it is not interested in distributing Chou’s new strategy game, Strat. Assuming BTT and Chou have a contract, and BTT has breached the contract by not distributing the game, discuss what remedies might or might not apply. 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? According to the reading, I do not see that BBT and Chou actually had engaged in an official contract at any point during their conversation about their plan to concrete one. Both parties entered into an exclusive negotiation for a period of 90 days so three days before this negotiation expired, they had reached a verbal distribution agreement. They also had stipulated in the negotiation that it would be no actually a distribution contract unless it was in writing. BTT sent an e-mail to Chou specifying all the terms of the distribution agreement which they had agreed upon, but neither party signed it. A verbal agreement was made by the two parties but they never made an official contract to be signed; therefore, a contract never existed 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? BTT had paid Chou $25,000 for an exclusive negotiation rights in...

Words: 1102 - Pages: 5

Big Time Toymaker

... Big Time Toymaker (BTT) develops, manufactures, and distributes board games and other toys to the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Chou is the inventor of a new strategy game he named Strat. BTT was interested in distributing Strat and entered into an agreement with Chou whereby BTT paid him $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. The exclusive negotiation agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. Just three days before the expiration of the 90-day period, the parties reached an oral distribution agreement at a meeting. Chou offered to draft the contract that would memorialize their agreement. Before Chou drafted the agreement, a BTT manager sent Chou an e-mail with the subject line “Strat Deal” that repeated the key terms of the distribution agreement including price, time frames, and obligations of both parties. Although the e-mail never used the word contract, it stated that all of the terms had been agreed upon. Chou believed that this e-mail was meant to replace the earlier notion that he should draft a contract, and one month passed. BTT then sent Chou a fax requesting that he send a draft for a distribution agreement contract. Despite the fact that Chou did so immediately after receiving the BTT fax, several more months passed without response from BTT. BTT had a change in management and informed Chou they were not interested in distributing Strat. 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties...

Words: 543 - Pages: 3

Big Time Toymakers

...Big Time Toymaker Latasha McClure LAW/421 July 26, 2013 Cory Childs Big Time Toymaker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Big Time Toymaker and Chou entered in to a contract when BTT paid Chou 25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for 90 days. This showed all elements of a contract there was mutual assent, consideration when BTT paid the 25,000, it was legal and both parties had contractual capacity. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? There are several factors that may weigh in favor of Chou BTT paid Chou 25,000 for exclusive negotiation right for 90 day. One of BTT managers sent Chou an e-mail with the subject line start deal that stated all the terms of the oral agreement all of this shows intent. The article was unclear if the e-mail was signed by the manager of BTT this is the only thing that my help BTT. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in question 1 and 2 (above)? No the e-mails does not have any impact on my analysis because the e-mail could satisfy the Statue of Frauds Law because most e-mails are signed. E-mails sent by company management normally have the company logo on the letter head. 4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? The statute of frauds plays a huge role in this contract. If this case were to be taken to court the lawyers for Chou could......

Words: 469 - Pages: 2

Big Time Toymaker

...Vennessa Miller Law421 Professor Nikki Chtaini Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker November 11, 2013 There was contract. What they put together was an agreement in an email. Three days before the expiration of the 90 day period the parties reached an oral distribution agreement at a meeting. Then later a draft agreement contract was sent. The fact that may weigh in favor of Chou is that he has the email that he sent and when he sent the email but on the other hand what may not work in his favor is because both signature is not on the agreement. Yes it does because they do have a source of correspondence to one another. None, since it is a services contract for distribution rights.  The Statute of Frauds only comes into play if it is a goods contract.  If it is believed by the judge to be a goods agreement then the written requirement, the all terms included requirement and the signed by the sender all have been met by the email with its automatic signature of the manager representing BTT. BTT could not avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake because there was no mistake the received an email about the agreement that was made between both parties. The only thing that would help is because they did not sign the agreement so it can be avoided Chou would value by having his product dispersed for sale throughout the network of retail that BTT as a board game company had at their disposal. BTT would profit by laying the blame on their cut for dispensing......

Words: 414 - Pages: 2

Big Time Toymaker

...Big Time Toymaker The following case scenario is concerning the existence of a valid contract between two parties. A valid contract can be verbal and/or written. The contract becomes valid when there has been a promise, an acceptance, and consideration relating to the terms and conditions of the agreement. A breach of contract can take place if one of the parties does not comply with the terms of the contract. If this happens, the non-breaching party may be awarded remedies to recover any losses or damages. “The Law provides certain relief for aggrieved parties that suffer losses as a result of another party’s breach of contract. These relief mechanisms are collectively referred to as remedies. For many contracts, the remedy at law will be money damages awarded by the court to the non-breaching party. This is simply a legal mechanism for compelling the breaching party to compensate the innocent party for losses related to the breach” (Melvin, 2011. p. 171). The scenario between Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou is about the two parties coming into an agreement to distribute a new game called STRAT, invented by Chou. Chou did enter an agreement with BTT for a trial period of 90 days with exclusive negotiation rights. This agreement was confirmed with consideration of $25,000.00. Just before the 90 days had expired, the parties reached a verbal agreement during a meeting. However, there was never a formally written contract that was finalized by signatures.......

Words: 1177 - Pages: 5

Big Time Toymaker

...Running head: BIG TIME TOYMAKER Big Time Toymaker Name University Big Time Toymaker Paper A contract is an agreement between two parties that is enforceable in court. In order to have a valid contract, there are several criteria that must be met that will be explained throughout this analysis. A verbal or written agreement may result in a binding contract if the required contract criteria are met (Melvin, 2011). Contracts are put in place to protect both parties on either end of the agreement. A Big Time Toymaker (BTT) was interested in a new game that was invented by Chou. BTT entered into an agreement with Chou for exclusive rights to his inventory for a 90-day period at the cost of $25,000. This paper will discuss some pros and cons of a contract, if and when a contract should apply to a situation, and some remedies for a breach of contract. The Background of the Contract BTT and Chou made an exclusive negotiation agreement for a 90-day period. This agreement had stipulations that a contract had to be in writing within this period. Before the expiration of this period, the parties reached an oral agreement in a meeting followed by an e-mail from BTT to Chou repeating their oral agreement on paper. This electronic document reiterated the key terms of what was agreed upon in the meeting between the parties (Melvin, 2011, p. 155). With areas agreed upon, the parties should be considered under contract. Positive and Negative Facts of Agreement There are several......

Words: 1061 - Pages: 5

Big Time Toymaker

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Students Name LAW/421 Date Due Instructors Name Big Time Toymaker (BTT) is a company that develops, manufactures, and distributes board games and other toys to the U.S, Mexico, and Canada. Chou is the inventor of a new strategy game he named Strat. Big Time Toymaker and Chou entered into an agreement whereby Chou would receive $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. The agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. This paper will explain if Big Time Toymaker and Chou had an enforceable contract and any remedies they may use. Big Time Toymaker and Chou entered in a verbal contract when both parties negotiated the terms of BTT paying Chou $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. The parties had an oral agreement at the conclusion of their meeting, and this converted into written contract when BTT sent the email confirming that all essential contract terms had been met. This email provides evidence of BTT’s objective intent to be bound by the terms of their agreement, and we know Chou intended to be bound since he is the one seeking to enforce their agreement. The facts that weigh in favor of Chou would be the e-mail that contains all the terms of the agreement. Technically it is in writing and that was the only clause in their verbal arrangement. The facts that weigh against Chou would be that the e-mailed was not signed by......

Words: 635 - Pages: 3

Big Time Toymaker

...Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 September 25, 2014 Phillip Muir - University of Phoenix Big Time Toymaker BTT and Chou made an exclusive negotiation agreement for a 90 day period. There were specific stipulations that a written agreement must be in affect and signed within this time frame. Both parties had reached an oral agreement before the 90 day expiration had occurred and also had contacted each other through an e mail repeating the terms of the oral agreement on paper. This electronic document reiterated the key terms of what was agreed upon in the meeting between the parties (Melvin, 2011, p. 155). With this all taking place, the two parties should be considered under contract. There are several areas within this contract that show both positive and negative facts for Chou within the terms of intent of contract. Some of the positive facts that work in favor for Chou are, there was a meeting that was concluded with an oral agreement, the follow up e mail from BTT with the key terms that were agreed upon, time that was spent between both parties acting under the contract guidelines, the fax requesting a draft for the contract. Some of the negative facts that work against Chou are, there were no signatures binding the contract, the 90 day deadline had passes with just the oral agreement, the negotiation agreement that stated that no contract would exist unless in writing, the wording in the e mail that Chou received had nothing that read the words contract.......

Words: 668 - Pages: 3

Big Time Toymakers

...Big Time Toymakers Jessica Costin August 19, 2014 LAW/421 Ric Hedges Case Scenario Introduction Big Time Toymakers makes board games all over the world. Chou came to BTT with a deal that if Chou would let BTT distribute their game STRAT. BTT offered that they would give him 25,000 in exclusive negotiation rights for a three month period. The deal between BTT and Chou began when the time frame was set. The obligations between the two were made and the price that would be given was also established through the emails. Formation of a Contract “A contract is formed when an offer by one party is accepted by the other party” (Fitzroy Legal Service (2014). The first step to a contract is known as offer and acceptance. Therefore this means that an offer that has willingness between the parties that want to negotiate or make a deal. The second step is the intent to create legal relations, which means that just because two people have an agreement it does not mean that they have a contract. A contract is only made when parties are in an agreeance in a legal binding agreement. The third step is consideration which states “that the price paid for the promise of the other party”. (Fitzroy (2014). The price paid does not necessarily mean that it has to be money. The fourth step is to make sure that the people that are in this contract that they are in the right mind. This means that they are not minors, bankrupts, or people that are in jail. The fifth step is consent, which......

Words: 901 - Pages: 4

Big Time Toymaker

...Big Time Toymaker LAW/421 Big Time Toymaker This paper will discuss the Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker along with the related questions and answers. Big Time Toymaker (BTT) is a company that specializes in board games and other toys. Their organization covers all aspects of this industry including developing, manufacturing, and distribution of board games and other toys. In this particular case scenario Big Time Toymaker was interested in a specific new strategy game called Strat invented by an individual named Chou (MELVIN, 2011). Big Time Toymaker paid Chou $25,000 for exclusive negotiation rights for a term of 90-days. Within the exclusive negotiation rights it stated that no distribution contract will exist until it’s in writing. Three days before the 90-day term ended both parties made an oral distribution agreement while in a meeting. After reaching this oral agreement Chou offered to draft a contract restating everything agreed upon orally. Before the contract was drafted by Chou, he received an e-mail from a BTT manger stating the key terms of the orally agreement, which include prices, time frames, and obligations expected of both parties (MELVIN, 2011). Chou neglected to daft a contract due to the content of the received e-mail and after some time received a fax requesting a copy of the drafted distribution agreement contract. Even though Chou delivered the contract immediately following the request several months went by......

Words: 674 - Pages: 3

Big Time Toymaker

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Big Time Toymaker (BTT) granted Chou an agreement to a option contract. BTT pays Chou $25K to keep exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. Therefore, BTT purchased the rights to negotiate a distribution agreement for Chou’s invention (a board game). The agreement stipulated that at the end of the 90-day period, if the parties could not come to terms on a distribution deal. Chou would be free to enter into a contract with another distribution company and keeps the $25K. This is a valid enforceable oral contract between BTT and Chou. Upon close study, I do not believe that the parties concerned ever had a distribution agreement contract. The negotiation agreement specified that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. The two came to an oral agreement three days before the 90-day deadline. Immediately, following the meeting the BTT manager sent Chou an e-mail with “Strat Deal” in the subject line, reiterating the key terms of the oral distribution agreement in regard to price, time frames, and obligations of both parties (Melvin, 2011). However, there was no evidence to show that Chou ever accepted the offer via e-mail in accordance with the governing common law mailbox rule. Only an oral agreement was reached; with no legally binding draft and the signature of both parties present, no contract exists. 2. What facts may weigh in favor or against Chou......

Words: 588 - Pages: 3

Big Time Toymaker

...Big Time Toymaker April 13, 2015 Big Time Toymaker Big Time Toymaker is an industry leading toy company that manufactures, develops and distributes board games and other toys to the United States, Mexico, and Canada (Melvin, 2011 p. 155). This assignment allowed us to witness first hand a deal for a product that could of made the inventor very wealthy. Although this was not the case, this assignment taught us various lessons in business law and communication. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? Based on the information provided in “Theory to Practice” the parties officially had a contract three days before the 90-day period when a BTT manager sent Chou the “Strat Deal” email. This email repeated the key terms of the distribution agreement; it included the obligations of both parties, price and time frames. The email stated that al the terms had been agreed upon (Melvin, 2011 p. 155). It was normal for Chou to assume that this email replaced the earlier notion of him drafting the contract with the same information mentioned in the e-mail. Assuming he did not clarify this with the BTT Manager who emailed him, he should have taken the initiative in confirming this. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contrast? The biggest fact to weigh in favor of Chou is the $25,00 he was paid by BTT in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights. Because BTT can’t go back and say they paid him the......

Words: 1002 - Pages: 5