Sanchis v. Rosell

The fatal flaw in the court’s reasoning is that the plaintiff Bacardi never agreed to the defendant Sanchis’ unilateral proposals for a repayment schedule on the subject loan, as contained in Sanchis’ letters to Bacardi dated February 18 and August 16, 1988,1 much less gave any consideration for same. Indeed, Sanchis in effect withdrew these repayment proposals for lack of funds in his letter to Bacardi dated November 22, 1988,2 following which Bacardi’s *835counsel sent Sanchis a demand letter on November 28, 1988, stating “We must now insist that an adequate and appropriate plan for repayment…