Student Name: Ke Chen
Class: MGMT 230
Case Number: 18.2

STEWART LAMLE v. MATTEL, INC.
394 F. 3D 1355 (2005)

FACTS: Lamle owned a game, Farook. Mattel was interested in distribution rights, so they signed an agreement that Mattel had exclusive rights to negotiate with Lamle from March 18 until June 15 for $25,000, but there was no distribution contract unless it was in writing. On June 11 the parties reached an agreement, Mattel asked Lamle to draft a formal contract to memorialize 'The Deal.' On June 26, Mattel employee Bucher sent Lamle an email entitled "Farook Deal" that repeated the key terms of the June 11 meeting, it stated that the terms had been agreed to and ended "Best regards Mike Bucher." August 13, Mattel sent Lamle a fax saying it was "waiting for a draft licensing agreement", Lamle sent it on August 19, Mattel then decided it was not interested and told Lamle so in October. He sued for breach of contract, the district court dismissed the suit, Lamle appealed.

ISSSUE: Does the court affirm the grant of summary judgment as to the other claims?

LAW: Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 2001) stated “The grant of summary judgment for breach of contract claims is reviewed without deference.” And Summers v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc., 127 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir. 1997) stated “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here being Lamle.”

ANALYSIS: Lamle appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Whether a contract is formed depends on the mutual assent of the parties as determined by the objective expressions of the parties. The district court found that no reasonable juror could find