This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: he parties had the actual intent
to contract or were still engaged in preliminary negotiations. But because the trial court had ruled for
Mattel as a matter of law, dismissing the case in part because any such contract would (continued) rog80328_05_c05_089-110.indd 106 10/26/12 5:37 PM CHAPTER 5 Section 5.6 Chapter Summary Case Study: Lamle v. Mattel, Inc. (continued)
have to be in writing, the appeals court examined whether the fax could satisfy California’s statute
of frauds. It noted that whether or not the terms in the e-mail constituted all the material terms was
likewise a question of fact for trial.
However, whether the e-mail met the signature requirement was a question of law. The party to be
charged was Mattel, and the June 26 e-mail was written by Bucher, an employee of Mattel, and his
name appeared at the end of the e-mail, which concludes with “Best regards Mike Bucher.” Mattel did
not dispute that Bucher had the authority to represent the company. The California Supreme Court
had not decided whether electroni...
View Full Document