In this document of LAW 421 Week 4 Big Time Toymaker you will find the next information:
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 what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
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?
Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?
At the conclusion of the case, BTT declares that it’s not thinking about distributing Chou’s new strategy game, Strat. Presuming BTT and Chou have got a deal, and BTT has breached the agreement by not distributing the game, discuss what remedies may or may not apply.
