Basis entered an agreement with Amazon whereby it would provide services allowing Amazon to create an electronic commerce service in Japan. A few months later, they signed a “Series of Preferred Stock Purchasing Agreement” under which Amazon bought 1,654,412 shares of Basis stock and got a seat on Basis’s board. It also got an agreement designed to maintain the percentage of Amazon’s ownership of Basis. The agreements became the focus of a dispute between them. Basis sued Amazon. The parties entered into settlement negotiations. 

Basis counsel sent an email that set out the terms and ended it by saying, “please contact me first thing tomorrow morning if this e-mail does not accurately summarize the settlement terms. . . .” Amazon replied, “Correct.” After this, they exchanged emails and drafts that kept changing. When Basis sought to enforce the settlement agreement, Amazon argued it was incomplete and indefinite. Is Amazon correct? Why?