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 the end of the scenario, BTT states that it is not interested in distributing Chou’s new strategy game, Strat. Assuming BTT and Chou have a contract, and BTT has breached the contract by not distributing the game, discuss what remedies might or might not apply.
Explain your answers and refer to Section 7-6 in Ch. 7 for support.
1. They had some sort of contract, whether it was verbal or written where Big Time Toymaker (BTT) agreed to pay Chou, the inventor, $25,000 in exchange for negotiation rights for 90 days. And on the 87 day the two parties came to another verbal agreement, or contract. But no “true” contract was ever reached
2. The facts that favor Chou were the oral agreement for the initial $25000 with BTT as well as the email they sent asking for a draft of the distribution agreement contract. At the same time the facts against Chou were that the contract was never signed because it was never written. Also, Chou entered into an exclusive negotiation rights agreement for 90 days specifically stating, “NO contract exists unless it is in writing.” Finally, the biggest fact against Chou was that he did not turn in a contract in the 90 day period.
3. In regards to question 1 I would say no. There was still no contract signed or created. Yes, because using the term “deal” instead of contract. So he thought he was going to have a legit agreement. Emails have a lot of room for connotation and personal inference.
4. The statue of frauds specifically calls for a signature of the party against who the enforcement of a contract is being sought. Even an email can satisfy the requirement for a signed contract.
5. The doctrine of mistake is a legal term that voids a contract “due to the misunderstanding in the...