Absent detrimental reliance of some sort, Wheeler cannot overcome the gratuitous promise/lack of consideration issue.
Answer Version #2
There was no contract between them because Wheeler never gave up anything in consideration for the Jennings promise. At most, the Jennings letter was only an offer that Wheeler could (and would have to) have accepted in the ordinary manner in which offers can be accepted in contract formation. The fact that the offer was about a specific item is important too. Had Jennings written "I will sell you any 1955 Thunderbird Convertible for $13,500 before October 9th if I still have any of them in stock" Jennings could not have refused to honor that offer if Wheeler came in...
Even then, Jennings could still have retracted that offer anytime simply by notifying Wheeler that the offer was being retracted.
Wheeler might still have a chance to recover if he relied on the promise even though there was never any transfer of valuable consideration for it. If Wheeler looked at the letter again on September 14th and put a non-refundable deposit on a parking spot lease before going to the dealership the day after Jennings sold it, Wheeler could sue Jennings to recover his actual out-of-pocket expenses if he genuinely relied on the offer in the letter. The fact that Jennings could have simply notified Wheeler as soon as he sold the car but did not is also…
