Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Compose a 500 words essay on Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker. Needs to be plagiarism free!s in favor of Chou is that BTT and Chou had come to a verbal arrangement three days before the conclusion of
Compose a 500 words essay on Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker. Needs to be plagiarism free!
s in favor of Chou is that BTT and Chou had come to a verbal arrangement three days before the conclusion of the 90-day special negotiation (Melvin, 2011). Shortly afterwards, a BTT management agent sent an email to Chou with the particulars of the arrangement. The email said that all conditions “had been agreed upon.” Secondly, BTT asked Chou to send them a sample distribution agreement with all the details of the contract that the BTT agent sent to Chou (Miller, 2012). Lastly, according to Amended UCC § 2-201(1)) of the Statute of Frauds, the allocation of Strat would have surpassed the $500 cap. However, this fact may also be against Chou considering he lacked an actual signature on the contract for the allocation of Strat (Twomey and Jennings, 2013).
Yes. The fact that BTT and Chou communicated through email through this entire process means both parties were very aware of the terms of their agreement and impending transactions (Gibson and Fraser, 2014).
The Uniform Commercial Code grants the statute of frauds a role in the contract between BTT and Chou. The statute of frauds is applicable to any commodities or services with a value that does not exceed $500. In this case, BTT traded $25,000 for special rights for a 90-day period that Chou agreed to. The statute of frauds applies because both parties did not conduct the discussed arrangement as originally decided (Melvin, 2011).
BTT cannot dodge this contract under the doctrine of mistake since there is no proof of any mistake in the best interests of BTT. The doctrine of mistake requires the involvement of a primary assumption entailing the terms on which both parties came to the arrangement. BTT’s manager sent an email to Chou that specifically cites their agreement in all details of cost, schedule, and commitments. When there is no conflict over a single or more of the fundamental details, the court usually does not permit the consideration of a one-sided Mistake (Melvin, 2011).
BTT’s delivery
