Dear Mr. J,
I am writing this letter in response to your suit against Tom S. for his breach of contract with you. The primary aim of my letter is to defend Mr. Tom’s interests and to prove the legal groundlessness of your claims.
I would like to start with a brief summary of the current situation. My client argues that he offered you to buy his 2006 Toyota Camry for $5,000. At that time you could not afford to pay $5,000 but only $4,000. Tom S. refused to sell his car on these terms. The next day you approached Mr. Tom and claimed that you would pay $5,000, but Mr. Tom explained that his car is no longer for sale. So, now you sue Tom S. for his breach of contract with you.
The contract between Mr. Tom and you is not valid or enforceable. The point is that every contract, either it is made orally or in writing, is legally valid if it possesses the following essential elements: specific offer, acceptance and mutual consent. Mr. Tom made you a specific offer to buy his car for a certain sum of money. It was a specific offer, but you did not accept his terms. Instead, you made a counteroffer, suggesting another price for the car. Mr. Tom, in his turn, did not accept your offer. So, the mutual consent was not achieved. As you see, this situation cannot be viewed as an oral contract between Mr. Tom and you. It was not even an agreement, because the terms suggested were not acceptable for both parties. The conversation between you two may be interpreted as preliminary negotiations as you did not demonstrate any intent to the further formation of contractual relations. The problem might be viewed differently if you had promised Mr. Tom to find the required sum of money as soon as possible and asked him not to look for another customer and not to change any conditions formulated in his initial offer. As a result, the contract is in no way enforceable and therefore cannot be sued in court.
I hope that my arguments were quite understandable and you will change your mind as for suing Mr. Tom.