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
- 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
- 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
- 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
- 4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
- 5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided?
- 6. Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?
These solutions may offer step-by-step problem-solving explanations or good writing examples that include modern styles of formatting and construction of bibliographies out of text citations and references. Students may use these solutions for personal skill-building and practice. Unethical use is strictly forbidden.1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract?
The contract between the two parties occurred when BTT manager sent Chou an email confirming all the key issues that the two parties had agreed on oral meeting. By labeling the email as “Strat Deal,” the BTT manager, on the behalf of the organization confirmed their interest. The manager’s action is an external significant act upon the agreement and affected the two parties.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
The law explains...
By purchasing this solution you'll be able to access the following files: