Practice Btt and Chou Contractual Agreement Btt

¶ … Practice BTT and Chou contractual agreement BTT (Big Time Toymaker) and Chou are two individual entities that casually agreed on an oral contract to exchange a business product. Chou provided a new game strategy to BTT, a business entity that manufactures, and distributes games. BTT agreed to obtain the new game and distribute to the expected clientele. In return, Chou was to receive 25000 dollars. However, this agreement was done casually. There was no witness at the time of agreement.

In addition, the two parties did not sign any official document except to the exchange of a fax from BTT. The result of this negotiation was not concluded. BTT stopped communicating with Chou after receiving a draft for the new game strategy (Strat). A Definitive Position Chou is a client that should be advocated for because he has an upper hand in this business link having fulfilled all his requirements as requested and agreed previously with BTT.

As a partner, Chou responded positively to the request to forward a draft of the new game (Strat) to BTT. He stayed positive throughout the negotiation period of 90 days. Chou was at the forefront to initiate the agreements between the two parties. Although Chou was not strict, as a partner he showed utter interest to the business throughout unlike BTT who quit in the end. As an independent person in this business negotiation, Chou has a right to claim for compensation from BTT.

It is clear that BTT intended to become a business partner. On the other hand, Chou cloud has benefited from the same (Fisher & Greenwood, 2011). The shortcomings of this contract led to the breaching of the business agreements. The result of this discontinuity was a significant loss to Chou who had played his role well thought out. However, the loose ends left out by Chou are crucial in determining justice at the court. The judicial ruling can be states on the claims of failure to perform as expected.

It is evident that BTT breached the contract as agreed between the two parties. It is essential to realize that the oral agreement between the two parties was the centerpiece of this business communication (Fisher & Greenwood, 2011). Hence, all actions that followed should have been a consequence of the same agreement. However, BTT failed at a given point in this aspect. It was the role of BTT to respond back to Chou after receiving the draft. However, BTT did not respond.

According to the law, complete performance is regarded only when one of the parties or both parties render his, hers or its full performance as agreed previously depending on the contract specifications. According to the agreements between BTT and Chou, BTT had a remarkable role to play in this business agreement. It is the role of BTT to respond to Chou about the draft. The company had to contribute fully to the business agreement by paying for the draft.

This was a mandatory for them to seal the deal about the distribution of the new game. The refusal to communicate further with Chou remains a clear indication of retrieval from the contract. In this case, BTT puts Chou in jeopardy due to declining to communicate further with him, which is evidently a breach of contract. This factor can strongly be used against BTT to regain compensation for taking the draft without payment.

On the other hand, the role of Chou has not been well implemented during the time of negotiation and after. While he was required to have written the agreement and sent to BTT, but he overstayed to the time he received a fax from BTT. His silence towards this response can be categorized as negligence. This act of negligence contributes to the failure of the plan. Sequentially to avoid this scenario, Chou could have responded with clear terms on the way forward.

The Oral Agreement The oral contact is an aspect that played a key role in the continuity of the business link. The agreement made between BTT and Chou led to the strengthening of the business bond that led to the exchange of the draft. It is imperative to note that the two parties stayed put until the negotiation period was over. Hence, it can be taken as a clear step towards the establishment of the contract. In this context, the consideration of the oral agreements is fundamental.

Doctrine of Mistake The failure to ensure full participation by both parties in this case reveals the partiality of the decision. It is critical to note that the two parties continually communicated with each other only to a certain level. This included the oral agreement and communication via email and fax. While BTT was at the forefront to ensure that they exchanged contract terms, Chou did not give an immediate response to the terms submitted. Chou only stayed in assumption depending on the agreements done in the past.

This decision by Chou may have influenced the further delays of communication after the submission of the draft (Cheeseman, 2009). A common mistake has been committed by both parties, which contributed to the breaching of the contract. It is fundamental to have a witness while discussing a business agreement. The lack of a third party between the two parties leaves out a significant 'pot hole' that can be used by either of the parties. In this case, the involvement of the third party was highly disregarded.

Both BTT and Chou did not note the importance of having another person witnessing their business discussion. As a result, they did not have any written document to sign or an official document to file as evidence to the agreement. In this regard, they can only rely on the email and fax to.