Case Scenario - Big Time Toymaker

Case Scenario- Big Time Toymaker

Joe Snow

LAW/421

September 18, 2012

Rachel A Compton

Case Scenario- Big Time Toymaker

According to Melvin (2011), the word "contract" is often used to describe a written document. Sometimes contracts are not in writing but are still enforceable. In the scenario of BTT and Chou, the exclusive negotiation agreement contract stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. There is the broad underlying requirement to form an enforceable contract. The notion of Mutual assent states that to have a valid contract, BTT and Chou must reach an agreement using offer and acceptance (Melvin, 2011). It appears that BTT orally made a valid offer to Chou, who in turn accepted the offer, which essentially required the parties to be bound by the agreement's terms. Keep in mind that mutual assent does not mean that both Chou and BTT intended in their minds to enter into an agreement. The law requires only that the BTT's acts or words lead Chou to believe reasonably that an agreement between the two of them has been reached.

Fortunately for Chou, he received an email from a manager at BTT repeating their agreed upon terms. The language contained in the e-mail to Chou, indicated a serious intent to form a contract. Courts will look at the language of the offer and actions of BTT to determine how a reasonable person would interpret that language. It may have been a mistake by management at BTT, but it looks like serious intent to form a contract. Because BTT and Chou had come to an oral agreement, the email seemed to reiterate that an agreement had been made.

In referencing the case of Stevens v. Publicis, S.A., 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 02880 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008), "The e-mails from BTT could constitute 'signed writings' within the meaning of the statute of frauds, because a BTT manager probably had his name at the end of his e-mail signifying BTT's intent to authenticate the contents of the email agreement. The Statute of Frauds has been a part of the law of the land for one- quarter of a millennium (Corbin, 1928). According to Melvin (2011), a mistake is defined in contract