LAW 421 Theory to Practice Essay

speculation to Practice Questions1.At one point, if ever, did the parties start out a signal?The parties had a contract when they hold on the key harm of the dispersion contract. The outgrowth agreement was a 90-day negotiation agreement and the second was an verbal distribution agreement in a meeting prior to the end of the 90-day negotiation. The oral agreement was followed by an email sent to Chou in which the terms of the agreement were reiterated by the manager of BTT. The manager of BTT showed objective goal to contract. In addition, faxes, e-mails, letters, memos, and receipts help establish a handshake deal (Hartline, 2007, para. 3). In another(prenominal) words, when BTT sent the email stating all the key terms orally discussed among the parties were agreed upon, both parties showed engrossed to contract, therefore the agreement of key terms should be considered under contract. 2.What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties objectiv e intent to contract? privilegeChou received payment from BTT, leading Chou to believe BTT had intent to come to agreement. The meeting ended with an oral agreement.There is proof of the oral agreement via the BTT e-mail. The e-mail may be considered a rough brief of the contract. The manager sent the e-mail including all of the key terms the parties agreed upon. Even though a month had passed, BTT still requested a copy of the distribution agreement draft. The amount of time spent on the contract and in contact with both parties shows intent to contract.AgainstNo signatures from both party to bind the contract.The 90-day negotiation deadline passed with only a write agreement, blush though the negotiation agreement stated only a written contract was valid. The contract wasnt drafted until BTT requested a copy a month later. The e-mail did not use the words 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? The fact that the parties were communicating via e-mail did not impact the analysis ofquestions 1 and 2. E-mail is a viable and effective form of communication in todays world, especially in business. E-mails can be saved and used as evidence in many court cases. According to the mailbox rule, the e-mail was sent prior to the 90 days and was considered accepted when it was sent (Melvin, 2011).4.What office staff does the statute of frauds play in this contract? The statute of frauds applies to the sale of goods over $500 sales over that amount need to be in writing (Melvin, 2011). The provisions of the statute of frauds are satisfied if the writing contains some(prenominal) items, including quantity, signature, and clear, concise language (Melvin, 2011). The textbook states that key terms were discussed and agreed upon in the e-mail, however I am not sure if that included quantity. However, BTT provided an electronic signature in the e-mail and the language in the e-mai l could be interpreted by a reasonable person as intent to form a contract. Therefore, the e-mail pretty much satisfies the statute of frauds conditions.5.Could BTT keep down the contract under the dogma of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided? I have ont think BTT can void the contract under the doctrine of mistake. A contract is void under the doctrine of mistakes because of misunderstanding in the parties involved such as unilateral mistakes and rough-cut mistakes. Nothing in the text indicates BTT made a mistake their reason for not fulfilling contract was a change in management. Chou made the mistake of intellection the e-mail was a draft of the contract, however the fact that BTT requested a copy of the draft a month later gave Chou the purpose the company still wanted to conduct business.6.Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what esteem supports this agreement? In order f or a contract to be binding, it moldiness be supported by agreement and consideration. The promise (Chou) was willing to ruin up something of value (his game) and the promisors (BTT) promise was part of a bargain for exchange (the key terms in the agreement, specifically wrong and time frames). BTT led Chou to believe that they were under contract because of their mutual agreement and consideration.ReferencesHartline, K. (2007, September). Oral contracts Do they carry any weight?. judicial Zoom. Retrieved from http//www.legalzoom.com/business-law/contract-law/oral-contracts-do-they-carryMelvin, S.P., (2011). The legal environment of business A managerial approach Theory to practice. New York, NY McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook Collection database