Consulting for Entertainment Weekly Q.4 Case Study

Consulting for Entertainment Weekly Q.4 - Case Study ExampleIn this case, it can be observed that Disney started distributing videocassette and gave lee(prenominal) the difference amount of 125% as agreed. However, Lee was dissatisfied because she felt that Lee was violating the contract. Disney defended himself by asserting that it is their policy not to allow profit sharing on voice participation deals. In addition, Disney gave evidence from other people who they had entered the contract with to substantiate his argument. Therefore, based on this case it can be observed that Lee was not aware that the agreement allowed Disney to make profits by distributing any other innovation such as cassettes recording. In addition, the contract was aimed at protect Disney because it gave him absolute right of ownership on the recording (Bouckaert and Boudewijn, p.28).The testimony affects the interpretation of the parties intent on entering into the contract in that it violated one of the ele ments of a valid contract which states that for a contract to be valid there must be an intention of the contracting parties to create a ski binding relationship. In this case, there was no binding relationship between the two parties. This is because Disney had an absolute right over Lee. In addition, Disney was not willing to create a binding relationship that could have been enforced by the law (Ryan, Daniel, p.8).Ryan, Daniel P. Essential Principles of Contract and Sales Law in the Northern Pacific Federated States of Micronesia, the Republics of Palau and the marshal Islands, and the United States Territories. New York universe, 2005.