Questions on the Contract between Big Time Toymaker and Chou

1. When considering the channel in the communication process the major delineation is whether it is personal or done over the internet

The contract was for a total of 62,748 jogging suits that would be custom made for girls and boys. The total contract price was for $ 749,103.60 that included the shipping of the merchandise, which would be shipped within six purchase orders. On or about August 29, 1994 they (Goody’s) terminated their contract in writing, which validates a right to cancel. The parties agreed to amend the first shipment date, Goody’s deny that all other shipment dates were to be amended as well. Goody’s feel that there was any “wrongful, unlawful, or without good cause or justification” eras on their behalf.

Review the facts provided and the sample contract. What provisions of the contract could you cite to support an argument that it is not in Big Banks best interest to rescind the contract? What facts could you cite to support an argument that Big Bank be responsible for some of these issues and/or not in compliance with the contract?

            In conclusion, Big Time Toymaker entered into an implied contract because of their actions of requesting the draft of distribution agreement.  In addition, they provided funding for the exclusive negotiation agreement.  They also followed up with an email stating all terms have been agreed upon.   Because of these elements in motion, it makes it a valid contract as both parties acknowledged the terms without them being officialized through contract and signatures.

They also agreed on the quantity of goods to be sold and the pricing of the goods. Since the parties admitted to these things, K.S.A. 84-2-201 did not prevent the contract from being enforced.

The first element of a contract is the agreement, which is defined as including an offer and acceptance of the offer. The offer must include an intention to be bound by the agreement, reasonable terms, and communication (Kubasek, 2012p. 324). In the verbal discussion between Sam and the store manager, there appears to be an attempt to form a bilateral contract because the store has promised exclusivity to the dog barking device, and Sam has offered to deliver 1,000 units. The verbal interaction shows an intention and communication of agreement to the contract. However, the terms are not fully defined in this agreement. Specifically, the

I will take a step by step analysis of the situation between Brenda and Albert. Firstly, I will advise Brenda and afterwards Albert. I will present the facts chronologically, as given to me, and advise on each issue individually with supporting evidence. I will refer to court cases and legislation such as Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sale of Goods Act 1979, The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 and Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I will conclude by stating that despite the overwhelming evidence against Albert, supported by precedent court cases, there is no legal contract between the parties. I will provide Albert with legal advise assuming both business to business and business to consumer

They went ahead to confirm their verbal agreement by paying an amount that partly makes them show desire to purchase the automobile. In return, with mutual understanding the salesman keeps the car and calls them to confirm if the purchase would be completed. A contract that is legally binding does exist here. There are factors in this scenarios that show a legally binding agreement is in existence.

In this case scenario, Greg negotiated an agreement with the Atlanta Braves baseball team, to pitch for the team for 5 years in exchange for $25,000,000. The agreement is never put into writing. On the day before the baseball season was to start, the Savannah Savages baseball team offered Greg $26,000,000 to pitch for them and Greg accepted their offer. The Braves sued Greg for breach of contract and the parties agreed to arbitration.

The parties did have a contract for exclusive negotiation rights as stated in the case scenario. Big Time Toymaker (BTT) paid Chou $25,000 for a 90-day period of exclusivity, thus prohibiting Chou from soliciting or entertaining offers from other parties. The agreement stipulated that unless it was written no distribution contract existed. Prior to the 90-days elapsing, the parties reached an oral agreement and BTT sent Chou an e-mail titled “Strat Deal” covering the key terms of the distribution agreement reaffirming the oral agreement. This e-mail does not constitute a contract for several reasons. First, this was part of the negotiation process and Chou failed to draft the contract to “memorialize" the

The plaintiff, P.A.Kettle, can be expected to argue that the offer of a free trip to Paris, France was an inducement for its agreeing to the contract. The fact that the contract was apparently executed within the twenty-four hour period dictated by Brigitte's comments lends credibility to the Paris deal being part of the contract. The plaintiff will have to prove that it had the right to rely upon the representations made by Brigitte as being those of the defendant, International Widgets. The plaintiff must argue that Brigette possessed the authority to contract on behalf of the corporation and that the failure of the corporation to comply with the negotiated terms, specifically, the free trip to Paris, was a breach of the contract.

The relevant rules are every simple contract must be supported by consideration, a promise to fulfil the terms of a contract is not always good consideration, and the rule that an agreement that is commercial in character can amount to a binding contract

Contractual agreements are supposed to be consensual, and freely entered into by the parties involved. Therefore, ‘before a court enforces a relationship as a contract, the courts must have a reasonably certain basis in fact to justify binding the parties to each other.’ (St. John’s Law Scholarship Repository, no date). Resolution of whether a contract was intended to be legally binding is not determined by what the parties themselves thought or intended. Rather, a more objective stance is taken by the courts. This is known as the objective theory of contract, and essentially enables ‘the courts to look at external evidence (what the parties said and did at the time)’ (Poole, 2006, p. 34), as to objectively indicate the parties’ intentions

Contract Law Case Study Both the parties in the question have come to a problematic situation

iv. During negotiation “business issues” took the centre stage and legal issues were to be addressed later. It shows mutual trust and focus on goals.