Final answer:
Tajinder would likely not have grounds for legal action against Amanpreet because there was no binding contract formed due to the absence of clear acceptance. For a binding contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, and intent to create legal relations, none of which were conclusively established.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question posed pertains to whether Tajinder can take legal action against Amanpreet for selling the car to someone else after receiving Tajinder's letter expressing an intent to buy the car at the price offered. This situation revolves around the principles of contract law, specifically the concept of offer and acceptance.
In contract law, for a legally binding contract to be formed, there must be an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations. Tajinder's letter indicates a willingness to buy and a promise to call the following week, but it does not explicitly state that it is an acceptance of an offer, which would be necessary for the formation of a contract. Moreover, acceptance must be communicated clearly, and it should be unequivocal. Since Tajinder planned to communicate later, there was no immediate acceptance.
Because there was no clear acceptance before Amanpreet sold the car to another party, there was no binding contract in place. Therefore, Tajinder would not likely have grounds for legal action on the basis of a contract claim. However, other legal theories, such as promissory estoppel, might be considered depending on the specifics of the case, though this is less likely to apply here due to the lack of a clear promise that Tajinder relied upon to his detriment.