Theory to Practice

468 Words2 Pages
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? The parties formed a contract when the manager at BTT sent an email to Chou. This met the requirement of having the contract in writing prior to 90 days. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts that weigh in favor of Chou is that BTT originally offered the exclusive contract for $25000 to be the only ones that could negotiate over 90 days. An agreement was made and then the management of BTT sent an email with the terms of the agreement, putting the oral agreement into writing. Chou offered to draft the contract, but BTT send an email regardless. Things that could work against Chou are he said he would draft a contract, but never did so, and went with an email as an accepted contract. 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 parties were in communication by email, and since the company wanting to distribute the new game for Chou sent the email with all the details of the contract it showed they were still interested and put it in writing the terms of the contract. 4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? The statute of frauds is a law that governs contracts. It states that contracts must be in writing to be enforceable. Since the contract is written in an email and shows evidence that a contract was made it would make the contract enforceable. 5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided? This would not fall under a doctrine of mistake because the email that was sent had the terms of the actual verbal agreement in writing. It was sent to the party that was involved with the

More about Theory to Practice

Open Document