Musk and Twitter. Correct me if necessary.

[no_hypocrisy]

I see the present situation as Contract Law 01.

Musk made an offer.
Twitter accepted the offer.
There was consideration.
Contract came into existence with binding expectations.

Musk withdrew offer. Contract no longer existed.
Twitter sued, not for specific performance, but for money damages it suffered for accepting an offer by Musk.

Musk restated his original offer.
Twitter refused the second offer because the offer-and-acceptance of the first offer lapsed after Musk withdrew his offer.
Musk's restatement of his offer is really a brand new offer to purchase Twitter and Twitter has no obligation to accept it.

Am I missing something?

[hlthe2b]

1. Who knows what nonpublic (including verbal) agreements might have been made...

and BIG STAKES $$ Contract law always struck me as an area where a judge can put his/her thumb on the scale if there is any ambiguity whatsoever.

I just wish someone/ some group with integrity would swoop in to make this all moot with a contractually binding offer; the latter that also included legally binding oversight to prevent an arbitrary political or ideologically-based change of direction for the enterprise.

[PortTack]

2. Someone here posted they thought mush still doesn't have the financing to make the purchase

Oh too too bad!