¶ … 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...

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…