Questions on the Contract between Big Time Toymaker and Chou

876 Words Jan 31st, 2018 3 Pages
A contract was reached as an agreement when Big Time Toymaker paid Chou $25,000 in exchange for an agreement to have exclusive negotiation rights for 90 days. Even though the negotiation agreement was limited and specified no distribution contract unless formally in writing, there was an oral and implied agreement three days before the 90 day deadline. This oral and implied contract was also followed by written correspondence from Big Time Toymaker in an email from Big Time Toymaker's manager to Chou confirming this agreement.
Part 2 What facts may weigh in favor or against Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract? The written confirmation through email from Big Time Toymaker confirms that a distribution contract was entered into via oral agreement prior to any specified deadline. Big Time Toymaker also sent, by fax, a request for a draft of distribution agreement, to which Chou immediately responded. These factors would weigh heavily against any claim that there was no contract, neither implied nor executed. One could argue that the limitations of time elapsed during discussions. While this might be argued convincingly, the email 3 days prior to the termination date clearly implies that Big Time Toymaker was serious in their intent. To deny that there was an oral agreement would be falsifying the record.
Part 3 Doe the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on…