BTT AND CHOU CASE 3
BTTand Chou Case
BTTand Chou Case
Thecontract existed at the point when the email that was sent by BTTmanager was received by Chou. In the case, a contract exists and thefact that favors Chou is that there is an agreement between the twoparties. A contract involves an agreement where each party agrees tothe terms of the other, and in this case, there was an initialconsensus. The second fact is that the agreement that was madebetween the two parties was in written form as agreed, and is thereis an evidence to prove the consensus. According to Willmott et al(2009), a contract is made binding by an agreement between twoparties over a subject, and there is a proof.
Thefact that the parties were communicating through email has asignificant impact on the conclusion above. The two facts are basedon the communication in the email which reaffirms the oral agreementthat was reached by the two parties. The statute of fraud plays aless significant role, and is reflected in the fact that BTT wasfeeling that they could be defrauded by continuing to the terms ofthe contract that Chou seemed not committed to.
BTTcannot invoke the doctrine of mistake to avoid this contract. This isbecause they had consciously entered into an agreement with Chou anddid not respond to the email with a rejection. BTT could have adefense that they did not sign the draft contract within the agreedtime while Chou has defense that he sent the agreements in writtenform of email and BTT did not reject. Assuming arguendo, the emailconstitutes an agreement because it is in written form and that itwas sent before the expiration of the 90 day deadline.
Willmott,L., Christensen, S., Butler, D., & Dixon, B. (2009). ContractLaw,Third Edition, North Melbourne: Oxford University Press