Big Time Toymaker Essay

The system to practice scenario between Big Time Toymaker and chow chow in my opinion entered into a contract in two separate occasions. The first period was the verbal agreement Big Time Toymaker (BTT) made with Chou three days before the 90 day period ended and then on that point was the e-mail Chou received that gave him the terms, time frame, price and obligations at this point Chou felt that there was an demonstrable contract. The one point that could help Chou in this case is that he has an email to prove that there was some sort of intent there from BTT regarding a contract. On the other hand the one subject that may count against Chou is that he never received whatsoeverthing in writing, which would be the authentic contract. The fact that both parties were communicating by email does impact my analysis.Companies send emails to one another all the time discussing terms and agreements and the fact that they had spoken and made a prior agreement verbally counts as the sign agreement and the email would be follow up. A contract consists of all parties that are involved to leave a signature and if they verbal agreement would not have taken place before the email then my decision would be different. I feel that Chou has the right to feel that he was get into into a contract with BTT but should have followed up for a written contract. The role of fraud has compete a role in this scenario according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the sale of goods for more than $500.00 and whatsoever lease transaction for goods of $1000.00 or more (Melvin,2011).In this scenario Chou received $25,000.00 in exchange for the duologue rights for 90 days from BTT. This is not a mistake under the doctrine of mistake because in bon ton for this to take place there would need to be a unilateral mistake made in the contract and there was not one and neither was there an actual written contract. If there was an actual contract there could have been laws applied to wards strict liability as well. For the sake of argument presumptuous that the email served as a sufficient contract then BTT was in rape of the contract. BTT was in breach by not distributing the game as they agreed. With BTT breaching the contract Chou can seek compensation for any damages and any loss.