The issue was whether a letter formed an enforceable contract. After a thorough discussion of the elements of a valid contract, the Court found that the letter lacked mutual assent as to material elements necessary to create an enforceable contract, including the price to be paid, identification of the parties, and the subject matter of the contract. The letter merely expressed the intent and desires of the parties, rather than their agreement.
Plaintiff therefore could not state a claim for tortious interference with contract.
Nor could plaintiff proceed on its promissory estoppel claim, as North Carolina recognizes that doctrine only in limited, defensive situations.
Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss