LAW 421 Theory to Practice Essay

scheme to Practice Questions1.At one point, if ever, did the dissociateies have a switch off?The parties had a digest when they concord on the get word term of the dispersal bowdlerize. The first cartel was a 90-day negotiation discernment and the second was an oral dispersal reason in a run across prior to the end of the 90-day negotiation. The oral agreement was followed by an netmail direct to boodle in which the terms of the agreement were reiterated by the manager of BTT. The manager of BTT showed objective designing to contract. In addition, faxes, netmails, letters, memos, and receipts help attest a handshake deal (Hartline, 2007, para. 3). In different words, when BTT sent the email stating all the attain terms orally discussed between the parties were hold upon, both parties showed intent to contract, therefore the agreement of key terms should be considered chthonian contract. 2.What positions may weigh in opt of or against cabbage in terms of th e parties objective intent to contract? kick upstairs loot received payment from BTT, hint Chou to rely BTT had intent to enter to agreement. The meeting ended with an oral agreement. on that point is proof of the oral agreement via the BTT electronic mail. The netmail may be considered a crude skeleton of the contract. The manager sent the e-mail including all of the key terms the parties agree upon. Even though a calendar month had passed, BTT still requested a reproduction of the distribution agreement draft. The amount of conviction spent on the contract and in contact with both parties shows intent to contract.AgainstNo signatures from either troupe to bind the contract.The 90-day negotiation deadline passed with only a written agreement, heretofore though the negotiation agreement state 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 w ere communicating by e-mail have whatever 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 stiff crop of communication in straightaways world, especially in business. E-mails backside be saved and used as evidence in many administration cases. According to the mailbox rule, the e-mail was sent prior to the 90 days and was considered judge when it was sent (Melvin, 2011).4.What role does the statute of frauds hearten in this contract? The statute of frauds applies to the cut-rate sale of goods everyplace $500 sales over that amount need to be in writing (Melvin, 2011). The provisions of the statute of frauds atomic number 18 satisfied if the writing contains several items, including quantity, signature, and clear, telegraphic language (Melvin, 2011). The textbook states that key terms were discussed and agreed upon in the e-mail, however I am n ot sure if that include quantity. However, BTT provided an electronic signature in the e-mail and the language in the e-mail could be interpreted by a conjectural person as intent to form a contract. Therefore, the e-mail pretty such(prenominal)(prenominal) satisfies the statute of frauds conditions.5.Could BTT a discharge the contract low the tenet of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would let in the contract to be avoided? I take 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 mutual mistakes. zip in the text indicates BTT made a mistake their reason for not fulfilling contract was a change in management. Chou made the mistake of thinking 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 impression the company still t reasured to conduct business.6.Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what regard supports this agreement? In order for a contract to be binding, it must be supported by agreement and consideration. The visit (Chou) was willing to give up something of mensurate (his game) and the promisors (BTT) promise was part of a bargain for exchange (the key terms in the agreement, specifically toll 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?.Legal Zoom. Retrieved from http//www.legalzoom.com/business-law/contract-law/oral-contracts-do-they-carryMelvin, S.P., (2011). The legal surround of business A managerial nestle Theory to practice. New York, NY McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook parade database