One Direction vs Big Time Rush

In: People

Submitted By Taylor555
Words 536
Pages 3
Just another one-hit-wonder or a true star? One Direction. Nickelodeon wannabe or really committed? Big Time Rush. These are both questions when thinking about these two bands, but both bands have strengths and personalities which allowed them to strive. I really can't say if the pop music in this generation has gotten better or worse, because there are so many posers out there you can't tell who's autotuned and who isn't. At first glance, the bands seem identical, because they both have a fan base populated by girls and they're both boy bands. People also think that these bands' will fade out in a couple of years just like Hannah Montana and But truthfully, their music videos and acting, hit singles, and what they could do to have fans staying happy are completely different. Both One Direction and Big Time Rush are great bands, but both have to work to make it to the top. Originally, the members of One Direction each wanted to be solo artists. Yet if it hadn't been for that twist of fate and the discovery from "X Factor", One Direction wouldn't have been where they are today! Other than music videos, the boy band has no acting experience, yet they have 80 MILLION views on YouTube! The closest this boy band has gotten to acting is when Nickelodeon made their online diaries into a weekly television show as of March 2012. Only one of their singles, "That's What Makes You Beautiful" was on the Billboard Top 100, but that doesn't mean they aren't famous! They have performed on news broadcasts like the Today Show, where over 10,000 screaming fans came to New York to watch them perform. Zayn, Liam, Harry, Niall, and Louis are already famous, but no doubt they'll keep their fans by making more songs! Big Time Rush. The early morning "only thing to watch" band with a television show. Okay, okay. I have to admit their show is a bit cheesy. But there's no question…...

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

One Time

...June 3, 2013 To Whom It May Concern; The purpose of this letter is to serve as a recommendation letter for Alante Peterson. He has been on my caseload since the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year here at Kent Meridian High School. Three words that I would use to describe Alante are motivated, committed and loyal. I’ve actually had the privileged of working with Alante for the past 3 years; one as a KM student and the other two as a student at Evergreen High School, in where he was involved in a mentorship program called P.A.L. I served as the lead mentor for this program. Even back then, Alante had a certain flare and commitment about himself that everyone noticed. This commitment lead to academic success and translated to Alante’s participation on our school’s basketball team. If the truth be known, our basketball team is not the most winning of teams in the district/league. However, Alante has been committed and loyal to his teammates and has continuously shown true Royal pride in his work ethic and team pride. This commitment has paid off because this year our basketball team made it to the playoffs. Alante was instrumental in making this success a reality. This motivation, commitment and loyalty are characteristics of a very deserving young man who will be an asset to any institution. I whole-heartedly give Alante my recommendation and urge you to give this deserving student an opportunity to make his life and the lives of his family better.......

Words: 271 - Pages: 2

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 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

One Direction

...grouped together by fate and later achieved fame in one direction. The members applied as solo candidates but they did not qualify as "Boys" category, thus judge Nicole Scherzinger suggested them to form a group so that they would qualify as "Groups". One Direction began toppling their competition one by one although they remained the only group in its category. With Simon Cowell as their mentor, One Direction managed to finish third behind runner-up Rebecca Ferguson and winner Matt Cardle. But One Direction were the quickest to break through the charts in United Kingdom and United States. Their supposed winning song "Forever Young" was leaked online after the "X Factor" final. The group signed a recording deal with Syco Records and they went on the annual contestants tour through April 2011. Meanwhile, work on their debut album was also moving fast. "What Makes You Beautiful" was released as the first U.K. Single in September 2011. The song successfully landed at number on U.K. Singles chart. "Gotta Be You" was released as one last bullet before the album "Up All Night" was released in November 2011 and took the second spot of U.K. Albums chart by selling more than 138,000 copies in the first week. The album was followed by U.K. Tour in December 2011 and January 2012. Their influence started to spread Stateside and they took the invasion one step at a time. The group signed up as the opening act of Big Time Rush from February to March 2012. They made a quick......

Words: 726 - Pages: 3

Direction vs Omnidirectional Antennas

...Compare and contrast the two types of antennas. Two types of antennas are directional and omnidirectional antennas. Both antennas send signals over a medium. The directional antenna signal in one specific location and is used on in the exterior of building and it points to the inside direction of the building. The oval shape acts as a barrier to keep the signal flowing in one directions and it keeps the signal from distorting or flowing in multiple locations. This means that anyone than needs to access the network, needs to be inside of the building hence, this is reduces any security issues on the network. However the WAN technologies use omnidirectional antennas because it spreads the signals as far as the wavelength can reach. This spreads the network to any neighboring buildings but also pose as a security risk because anyone in the proximity of the wave length can have access to the network. The signal spreads in every direction as compared to the directional antenna that focuses on one direction. The picture below, which was taken from the network textbook, shows the both antennas in addition to the signal flow. How does 802.11g differ from 802.11b and 802.11a? 802.11b has a range of 2.4GHz and provides only three channels for indoor usage. Each channel however, has up to 11Mbps and when the signal reaches furthers out, it begins to weaken. It is more advanced than the 802.11a because of the broader frequency range and it suffers less attenuation. The only...

Words: 346 - Pages: 2

Big Time Toy

...Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Law 421 Name Here 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? This is a very interesting case. I think both parties should have had a lawyer present. The problem for Chou is it stated (The exclusive negotiation agreement Stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing.) There was an email sent and Chou looked at the email as a form of a contract but in the legal terms nothing was signed or agrees too. Chou may have had a contract by legal terms because of the nature of the deal and dealing with a merchant. Imagine renting an apartment and the lease is not signed. Then you don’t have a lease agreement. I think Chou may be able to receive money for the verbal agreement in a private legal matter but nothing was ever signed. UCC Article 2 could apply because of the verbal agreement ( contract could be enforce in the court of law). I do think the emails help Chou in the court of law. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? I think the fact that both parties did reach a verbal agreement would help Chou. 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......

Words: 1016 - Pages: 5

Big Time Toy Maker

...Big Time Toymaker Ronda Bonny LAW/421 AUGUST 13, 2012 JAMES ZACCARIA Big Time Toymaker 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? After reading the case scenario, I do not believe either of the two parties involved ever established a binding distribution contract. It is true an oral distribution agreement was achieved just three days prior to the 90-day deadline, which was a condition established in the original negotiating contract. However, as clearly stated in the original negotiating contract, there is not to be a distribution agreement, or contract, unless it is in writing. After the meeting, Chou volunteered to draft the distribution contract that would formalize their agreement. However, before Chou could finish the draft, he received an e-mail from the BTT manager. The e-mail with the subject line “Strat Deal,” focused on the key points of the distribution agreement between both parties, including the price, time frames, and obligations of both parties. After receiving this e-mail, Chou incorrectly assumed that BTT wanted to draft the contract. Thus Chou stopped working on the draft and a month passed by. This passage of time voided any previous agreement because of the 90-day clause to finalize the contract. What BTT and Chou had was not a binding or enforceable contract. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts that prove there was no binding distribution......

Words: 734 - Pages: 3

Law421 Big Time Toymaker

...Big Time Toymaker At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? BTT paid Chou $25,000.00 to have exclusive rights for negotiations for a 90 day period. Big Time Toymaker and Chou did not have a binding enforceable contract made during this 90 day period. An oral distribution agreement was made three day before the 90 days deadline, but it was in the negotiations. But the negotiations said that there was not supposed to be an agreement unless it was in writing. Three days before the deadline, after the meeting Chou offered to draft the contract that would formalize their agreement. Before Chou could finish the draft, an e-mail was received from a BTT manager. The e-mail repeated the key terms of the distribution agreement including price, time frame, and obligations of both parties. Chou stopped working on the draft for one month, because he believed that BTT was going to draft the contract. During this time the 90 days had passed and it voided any agreement of the 90 days agreement that BTT and Chou had (Melvin, 2011 pg. 136). What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts that weigh against Chou’s in terms of the parties’ objective intent to a contract are that there was no written agreement, which was required in the negotiations. There was also no signatures were used to make the contract official. The word contract was never used in the email sent from BTT. Also the 90 day deadline that was...

Words: 1069 - Pages: 5