Big Time Toymaker V. Chou Essay

957 Words Feb 3rd, 2013 4 Pages
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
I believe that there were two contracts made in this scenario. The first one was the verbal contract that sated that the stipulations of price and the fact that there needed to be a written contract before distributing the product. The email, since it was in writing can also count as a written contract; both parties had knowledge that there would be some sort of written agreement. Chou was in the right to think that the email stating the key terms and agreements counts as a contract.

2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
The facts that Chou was in a verbal agreement with BTT will be helpful in proving that
…show more content…
In this case, something of value was put on the line by both parties, entering them into an agreement to exchange mutual performances. In this case there was also a value that we can determine, and that was $25,000 paid to Chou in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights. I think that consideration was present in this agreement, making a valid contract.

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.
In this scenario the remedies that would apply would be, compensatory damages because in this case Chou suffered a loss of potential profits that he would have made by his new game. It would also repay him as if BTT had not breached the contract. I think that if he could not claim compensatory damages then he would also be able to claim consequential damages because it states that it compensates the non-breaching party for foreseeable indirect loses. It also states that it involves a unique circumstance beyond the contract. In this case the contract BTT made was taken over by someone else who at the end did not want to do business with Chou. Restitution and Liquidated damages do not applied to this because there was no unjust enrichment by BTT due to the breach of contract. BTT and Chou did not agree to any damages ahead of

Related Documents