THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Defendant KOB-TV, LLC's Counterclaim for Promissory Estoppel and Breach of Contract, filed May 21, 2018 (Doc. 77)("Motion"). The Court held a hearing on June 28, 2018. The primary issues are: (i) whether Plaintiff Daniel Ormrod's demand that, if Defendant KOB-TV, LLC ("KOB 4") did not remove an allegedly defamatory news article from its website, then Ormrod would sue gave rise to a contractual obligation not to sue KOB 4; and (ii) whether the same demand also gave rise -- under the promissory estoppel doctrine -- to an enforceable promise not to sue KOB 4. The Court concludes that: (i) Ormrod's demand did not create a contract, so he did not incur a contractual obligation not to sue KOB 4; and (ii) Ormrod's demand was not a promise, so no legally enforceable promise not to sue exists. Accordingly, the Court will grant the Motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court draws its facts from KOB-TV, LLC's Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaim ¶¶ 1-29, at 8-13, filed April 30, 2018 (Doc. 66)("Counterclaim"). The Court accepts KOB 4's factual allegations as true for the limited purpose of deciding the Motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (clarifying the "tenet that a court must accept as true all of the [factual] allegations contained in a complaint")(alteration added)(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ); Archuleta v. Wagner, 523 F.3d 1278, 1283 (10th Cir. 2008) (concluding that a court must "accept as true all well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations" when deciding a motion to dismiss).

KOB 4 is a Delaware limited liability company whose sole member is Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., a Minnesota corporation *1218with its principal place of business in Minnesota. See Counterclaim ¶ 1, at 8. Ormrod is a citizen of New Mexico. See Counterclaim ¶ 2, at 8. The amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000.00. See Counterclaim ¶ 4, at 9.

On May 12, 2016, KOB 4 learned of a child abuse allegation involving Ormrod, a teacher at Dennis Chavez Elementary School in Albuquerque, New Mexico. See Counterclaim ¶ 6, at 9. Specifically, KOB 4 received a police report describing "the alleged completed commission of felony child abuse by Ormrod." Counterclaim ¶ 7, at 9. Allegedly, Ormrod grabbed a student's arm, leaving multiple bruises. See Counterclaim ¶ 8, at 9. KOB 4 published an online news article saying that Ormrod had been charged with felony child abuse. See Counterclaim ¶¶ 7, 9, at 9-10.

At approximately 3:56 p.m., Ormrod's attorney, Sam Bregman, called KOB 4, and said that he represented Ormrod and that Ormrod had not been charged. See Counterclaim ¶ 12, at 10. Bregman said that if KOB 4 did not remove the article, he would sue. See Counterclaim ¶ 12, at 10. After confirming with an Albuquerque Public Schools employee that Ormrod had not been charged, KOB 4 "at approximately 4:02 PM ... updated the article to remove the 'charged' language, and at approximately 4:08 PM ... removed Ormrod's name from the article." Counterclaim ¶ 14, at 11. KOB 4 also added an editor's note stating " '[t]he name of the teacher being investigated has been removed as he does not currently face charges. APS has since clarified that there is only an investigation at this point. A letter home to parents named the teacher involved.' " Counterclaim ¶ 14, at 11 (quoting Article at 3, filed April 30, 2018 (Doc. 666) ). Ormrod subsequently sued KOB 4. See Counterclaim ¶ 15, at 11.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ormrod alleges a single count of defamation against KOB 4. See Amended Complaint for Defamation ¶¶ 22-30, at 3-4, filed March 20, 2018 (Doc. 42). KOB 4 later filed two counterclaims against Ormrod, alleging one count of promissory estoppel and one count of breach of contract. See Counterclaim ¶¶ 16-29, at 11-13. Ormrod subsequently filed the Motion. See Motion at 1.

1. The Motion.

Ormrod moves the Court to dismiss the two counterclaims. See Motion at 1. Ormrod first argues that KOB 4 "does not state that Plaintiff explicitly stated he would not file a lawsuit even if the defamatory story was taken down." Motion at 3. According to Ormrod, "[i]t is not uncommon for an attorney, representing a client, to make a demand upon an opposing party to cease and desist from a certain action. The demand described under the auspices of [KOB 4's] counterclaim is insufficient to establish a contract." Motion at 3. He also contends that KOB 4 has not stated a claim for breach of contract, "because it does not state there was any sufficient consideration to establish a contract or the specificity required under Hansen v. Ford Motor Co.," 1995-NMSC-044, 120 N.M. 203, 900 P.2d 952. Motion at 4.

Ormrod then asserts that KOB 4 has not pled facts sufficient to satisfy promissory estoppel's elements. See Motion at 3-4 (citing Eavenson v. Lewis Means, Inc., 1986-NMSC-097, 105 N.M. 161, 730 P.2d 464 ). Finally, Ormrod contends that the Counterclaim "fails to state whether the individual who spoke to Plaintiff's counsel possessed the legal authority to enter into a settlement and release agreement on its behalf." Motion at 4. Ormrod concludes that the Court should grant the Motion. See Motion at 4.

*12192. The Response.

KOB 4 responds to the Motion. See KOB-TV, LLC's Response to Plaintiff Daniel Ormrod's Motion to Dismiss Defendant KOB-TV, LLC's Counterclaim for Promissory Estoppel and Breach of Contract, filed June 4, 2018 (Doc. 81)("Response"). KOB 4 first contends that it has sufficiently pled a claim for breach of a unilateral contract. See Response at 5. According to KOB 4, a unilateral contract exists between itself and Ormrod, because Ormrod made an offer not to sue KOB 4 in exchange for KOB 4 removing from its website the news article, and KOB 4 accepted Ormrod's offer by removing the relevant language. See Response at 6. KOB 4 adds that "an agreement to forebear suit is sufficient consideration in a unilateral contract." Response at 8.

KOB 4 next argues that Ormrod breached the parties' alleged contract. See Response at 10. According to KOB 4, "despite accepting Ormrod's offer by removing the 'charged' language, Ormrod has proceeded to sue KOB-TV, causing KOB-TV unnecessary harm." Response at 11. According to KOB 4, "Ormrod had a duty not to sue KOB-TV. However, Ormrod breached his contractual obligation by filing his lawsuit against KOB-TV." Response at 11.

KOB 4 then contends that Ormrod's breach of the parties' alleged contract caused KOB 4 damages. See Response at 11. According to KOB 4, "but for Ormrod filing his suit against KOB-TV, KOB-TV would not be damaged." Response at 11. Further, according to KOB 4, "as a result of Ormrod's breach, KOB-TV has suffered damages, including but not limited to, the attorneys' fees and costs of defending against the suit by Ormrod." Response at 12. KOB 4 concludes that it has properly pled a breach of contract claim. See Response at 12.

Turning to its promissory estoppel claim, KOB 4 asserts that it has properly pled all of that claim's elements. See Response at 12. First, KOB 4 avers that Ormrod made a promise inducing an action by promising not to sue if KOB 4 removed language from its news article. See Response at 14. According to KOB 4, "induced by that promise, KOB-TV took the action of removing the language ... from the news article." Response at 15. Second, KOB 4 contends that it reasonably relied on Ormrod's promise. See Response at 16. According to KOB 4, it "took the action of removing the language based on the promise by Ormrod and ... the action was in direct response to Ormrod's promise not to sue if the language was removed." Response at 16. Third, KOB 4 contends that it substantially changed its position by updating its news article and removing the "charged" language. Response at 17. Fourth, KOB 4 avers that it "has sufficiently pleaded foreseeability, noting that Mr. Bregman, on behalf of Ormrod, made a promise to induce KOB-TV to take a certain action." Response at 17. Finally, KOB 4 contends that "the [e]nforcement of the promise is necessary to prevent injustice to KOB-TV, including its expense of its continued defense of Ormrod's lawsuit." Response at 18. KOB 4 concludes that the Court should deny the Motion. See Response at 18.

3. The Reply.

Ormrod replies to the Response. See Plaintiff's Reply in Support of his Motion to Dismiss Defendant KOB-TV, LLC's Counterclaim for Promissory Estoppel and Breach of Contract, filed June 21, 2018 (Doc. 88)("Reply"). Ormrod first contends that "the language plead by KOB in its Counterclaim falls short of creating a contract." Reply at 1. According to Ormrod, *1220"there is simply no legal precedent to support KOB's contention where a potentially defamed individual calls a newsroom complaining about an error in a story, convinces the news media entity to remove the story, then somehow claim[s] an unwritten contract was created to forego litigation." Reply at 2. Ormrod continues that "there is nothing in the words plead[ed] in the counterclaim which explicitly state take down the false story and my client will not sue you if you do." Reply at 3. According to Ormrod, KOB's characterization of his statement as a " 'promise not to sue' is simply self-serving commentary on the actual statement which KOB claims created the contract." Reply at 3 (quoting Counterclaim ¶ 13, at 10).

Ormrod next avers that KOB 4's promissory estoppel claim should fail, because "KOB does not plead anything in its counterclaim to substantiate a change in position." Reply at 5. According to Ormrod, "all [KOB 4] appeared to do was remove the false claim that Plaintiff was charged with a felony. The story was not removed and [KOB 4] does not claim with any substance to have suffered a change in position by simply correcting a story." Reply at 5. Ormrod concludes that the Court should dismiss KOB 4's counterclaims. See Reply at 6.

4. The Hearing.

The Court held a hearing on June 28, 2018. See Draft Transcript of Motion Hearing at 1:6-9 (taken June 28, 2018)("Tr.")(Court).1 Ormrod first argued that the language "[r]emove from [KOB.com] within 10 minutes the article containing the statement that Ormrod had been charged or Ormrod would sue KOB-TV" does not create a contract. Tr. at 3:18-25 (Bregman). According to Ormrod, "I promised to them that I would sue them unless they did something. I didn't promise that I would never sue them." Tr. at 3:25-4:3 (Bregman). Ormrod continued that "[n]owhere did they allege that I said ... I promise not to sue you if you do this." Tr. at 4:13-15 (Bregman).

KOB 4 responded that Ormrod's words created a unilateral contract, because "[t]he language is important, it isn't take this down and I will sue you. It's take this down or I will sue you," Tr. at 9:6-8 (Rogers), and "what you're hearing now is, well, let's transform that ['or'] into an 'and,' " Tr. at 10:12-13 (Rogers). Ormrod replied that "there is no way that you can say positively to someone do something or I'm going to sue you and then say that that is somehow a promise that that same person would never sue that person. That is just contrary to what ... makes logical sense." Tr. at 19:22-20:2 (Bregman).

Turning to promissory estoppel, Ormrod averred that essentially the same analysis applies regarding whether he made a promise not to sue. See Tr. at 23:17-21 (Bregman). The Court then asked KOB 4 about promissory estoppel's fifth element, requiring a promise's enforcement to prevent injustice. See Tr. at 24:18-20 (Court). The Court stated: "I'm not seeing the injustice to channel 4. If anything, it mitigated damages here by getting ... the demand from an attorney and then acting on it." Tr. at 25:10-13 (Court). KOB 4 responded that "I believe that the injustice, the Court can take judicial notice of the expense and the aggravation and the damage *1221to everyone involved here. A proceeding that's going to be expensive." Tr. at 27:5-8 (Rogers). At the hearing's conclusion, the Court stated that it was inclined to grant the Motion. See Tr. at 35:8-9 (Court).

LAW REGARDING RULE(12)(b)(6)

Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "The nature of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of the allegations within the four corners of the complaint after taking those allegations as true." Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340 (10th Cir. 1994). A complaint's sufficiency is a question of law, and, when considering a rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint, view those allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in the claimant's favor. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007) ("[O]nly if a reasonable person could not draw ... an inference [of plausibility] from the alleged facts would the defendant prevail on a motion to dismiss."); Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009) ("[F]or purposes of resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in a complaint and view these allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.")(quoting Moore v. Guthrie, 438 F.3d 1036, 1039 (10th Cir. 2006) ).

A complaint need not set forth detailed factual allegations, yet a "pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citation omitted).

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff's complaint must contain sufficient facts that, if assumed to be true, state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ; Mink v. Knox, 613 F.3d 995, 1000 (10th Cir. 2010). "A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "Thus, the mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complainant must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims." Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007) (emphasis omitted). The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has stated:

"[P]lausibility" in this context must refer to the scope of the allegations in a complaint: if they are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it innocent, then the plaintiffs "have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." The *1222allegations must be enough that, if assumed to be true, the plaintiff plausibly (not just speculatively) has a claim for relief.

Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 )(internal citations omitted). See Glover v. Gartman, 899 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1131 (D.N.M. 2012) (Browning, J.); Tavasci v. Cambron, No. CIV 16-0461, 2017 WL 3173011, at *14 (D.N.M. 2017) (Browning, J.).

LAW REGARDING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND ERIE

Under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) (" Erie"), a federal district court sitting in diversity applies "state law with the objective of obtaining the result that would be reached in state court." Butt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 477 F.3d 1171, 1179 (10th Cir. 2007). Accord Mem. Hosp. v. Healthcare Realty Trust Inc., 509 F.3d 1225, 1229 (10th Cir. 2007). The Court has held that if a district court exercising diversity jurisdiction cannot find a Supreme Court of New Mexico "opinion that [governs] a particular area of substantive law ... [the district court] must ... predict how the Supreme Court of New Mexico would [rule]." Guidance Endodontics, LLC v. Dentsply Int'l., Inc., 708 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1224-25 (D.N.M. 2010) (Browning, J.). "Just as a court engaging in statutory interpretation must always begin with the statute's text, a court formulating an Erie prediction should look first to the words of the state supreme court." Peña v.Greffet, 110 F.Supp.3d 1103, 1132 (D.N.M. 2015) (Browning, J.).2 If the Court finds only an opinion from the Court of Appeals of New Mexico, while "certainly [the Court] may and will consider the Court of Appeal[s'] decision in making its determination, the Court is not bound by the Court of Appeal[s'] decision in the same way that it would be bound by *1223a Supreme Court decision." Mosley v. Titus, 762 F.Supp.2d 1298, 1332 (D.N.M. 2010) (Browning, J.)(noting that, where the only opinion on point is "from the Court of Appeals, [ ] the Court's task, as a federal district court sitting in this district, is to predict what the Supreme Court of New Mexico would do if the case were presented to it")(citing Wade v. EMCASCO Ins. Co., 483 F.3d 657, 666 (10th Cir. 2007) (explaining that, "[w]here no controlling state decision exists, the federal court must attempt to predict what the state's highest court would do," and that, "[i]n doing so, it may seek guidance from decisions rendered by lower courts in the relevant state") ).3 The Court may also rely on Tenth Circuit decisions interpreting New Mexico law. See Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC, 27 F.Supp.3d at 1243 & n.30.4 Ultimately, "the Court's task is to predict what the state supreme court *1227would do." Wade v. EMCASCO Ins. Co., 483 F.3d at 666. Accord Mosley v. Titus, 762 F.Supp.2d at 1332 (citation omitted); Rimbert v. Eli Lilly & Co., 577 F.Supp.2d 1174, 1188-89 (D.N.M. 2008) (Browning, J.)(quoting Wade v. EMCASCO Ins. Co., 483 F.3d at 665-66 ). See In re Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Marketing & Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, No. MD 16-2695, 288 F.Supp.3d 1087, 1160-61 (D.N.M. 2017) (Browning, J.).

NEW MEXICO LAW REGARDING BREACH-OF-CONTRACT CLAIMS

A contract is a legally enforceable promise that must consist of an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. See N.M.R.A., Civ. UJI 13-801. A person may breach a contract by failing to perform a contractual obligation when the performance is required, unless that performance is otherwise excused. See N.M.R.A., Civ. UJI 13-822. Incomplete performance is a breach of contract. See Cochrell v. Hiatt, 97 N.M. 256, 258-59, 638 P.2d 1101, 1103-04 (Ct. App. 1981) (holding that, where the contract called for the roof to be restored to a "healthy" state and guaranteed the work for twenty-five years, because the roof leaked within the twenty-five year period, the defendant's performance was incomplete, and the defendant was in breach of the contract). Under New Mexico law, "[t]he elements of a breach-of-contract action are the existence of the contract, breach of the contract, causation, and damages." Abreu v. N.M. Children, Youth and Families Dep't, 797 F.Supp.2d 1199, 1247 (D.N.M. 2011) (citing Camino Real Mobile Home Park P'ship v. Wolfe, 119 N.M. 436, 442, 891 P.2d 1190, 1196 (1995) ).

[A] complaint on breach of contract must allege: (1) the existence of a valid and binding contract; (2) the plaintiff's compliance with the contract and his performance of the obligations under it; (3) a general averment of the performance of any condition precedent; and (4) damages suffered as a result of defendant's breach.

McCasland v. Prather, 92 N.M. 192, 194, 585 P.2d 336, 338 (Ct. App. 1978).

Applying these principles in Armijo v. N.M. Dep't of Transp., the Court found that a plaintiffs' allegations failed to state a claim for breach of contract. See No. CIV. 08-0336 JB/ACT, 2009 WL 1329192 (D.N.M. Apr. 6, 2009) (Browning, J.). In support of the breach-of-contract claim, the plaintiff asserted that "the Department would follow state employment policies and procedure, and that the Department terminated him in breach of those policies without just cause." Armijo v. N.M. Dep't of Transp., 2009 WL 1329192, at *7. The Court noted that the plaintiff did not "indicate what contractual provisions *1228or employment policies the Department breached," and did not say "to what his employment contract entitles him or of what the Department deprived him." Armijo v. N.M. Dep't of Transp., 2009 WL 1329192, at *7. The Court found that there was "not enough to determine whether, if taken as true, the Complaint's allegations would support claims for breach of contract." Armijo v. N.M. Dep't of Transp., 2009 WL 1329192, at *8. On the other hand, the Court has previously determined that a pro se plaintiff sufficiently alleged that his counsel breached a contract for legal representation by alleging that his former counsel promised to represent the plaintiff at forfeiture proceedings, that the plaintiff paid the counsel, and that the counsel failed to represent the plaintiff. See Archuleta v. City of Roswell, 898 F.Supp.2d 1240, 1257-59 (D.N.M. 2012) (Browning, J.).

Additionally, in spite of the general bar on punitive damages for breach-of-contract cases, the Supreme Court of New Mexico has recognized that punitive damages may be recoverable under some circumstances for a breach of contract. As the Supreme Court of New Mexico stated in Romero v. Mervyn's, 109 N.M. 249, 784 P.2d 992 (1989) : "Our previous cases clearly establish that, in contract cases not involving insurance, punitive damages may be recovered for breach of contract when the defendant's conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, or committed recklessly with a wanton disregard for the plaintiff's rights." 109 N.M. at 255, 784 P.2d at 998. Punitive damages are not available when a breaching party's conduct was "solely gross negligence.... In addition to, or in lieu of, such negligence there must be evidence of an 'evil motive' or a 'culpable mental state.' " Paiz v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 118 N.M. 203, 211, 880 P.2d 300, 308 (1994). The Supreme Court of New Mexico has defined "reckless disregard" sufficient for an award of punitive damages as "when the defendant knows of potential harm to the interests of the plaintiff but nonetheless utterly fails to exercise care to avoid the harm." Paiz v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 118 N.M. at 211, 880 P.2d at 308 (secondary quotations and citation omitted). A defendant does not act with reckless disregard to a plaintiff's rights merely by failing "to exercise even slight care," absent the requisite "culpable or evil state of mind." Paiz v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 118 N.M. at 211, 880 P.2d at 308 (secondary quotations and citation omitted). The New Mexico Civil Jury Instructions define the elements necessary for an award of punitive damages for a breach of contract as follows:

If you find that __________ (name of party making claim for punitive damages ) should recover compensation for damages, and if you further find that the conduct of __________ (name of party whose conduct gives rise to a claim for punitive damages ) was [malicious], [reckless], [wanton], [oppressive], or [fraudulent], then you may award punitive damages.

N.M.R.A., Civ. UJI 13-861.

NEW MEXICO LAW ON CONTRACT INTERPRETATION AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE

In C.R. Anthony Co. v. Loretto Mall Partners, 112 N.M. 504, 817 P.2d 238 (1991), the Supreme Court of New Mexico abolished the four-corners standard of contract interpretation, which required a court to determine whether a contract was ambiguous without considering evidence of the circumstances surrounding the contract's *1229negotiation. The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that, "in determining whether a term or expression to which the parties have agreed is unclear, a court may hear evidence of the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract and of any relevant usage of trade, course of dealing, and course of performance." Id. at 508-09, 817 P.2d at 242-43 (footnote omitted). The Supreme Court of New Mexico went on to discuss the parol-evidence rule:

The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive law that bars admission of evidence extrinsic to the contract to contradict and perhaps even to supplement the writing.... The rule should not bar introduction of evidence to explain terms. As Professor Corbin observes, "No parol evidence that is offered can be said to vary or contradict a writing until by process of interpretation the meaning of the writing is determined." [A.] Corbin, The Parol Evidence Rule, 53 Yale L.J. 603, 622 (1944). The operative question then becomes whether the evidence is offered to contradict the writing or to aid in its interpretation.

C.R. Anthony Co. v. Loretto Mall Partners, 112 N.M. at 509, 817 P.2d at 243 (footnote omitted).

In Mark V, Inc. v. Mellekas (" Mark V"), the Supreme Court of New Mexico made it clear that consideration of extrinsic evidence was not only allowed, but required. See id. at 781, 845 P.2d at 1235 (holding that court committed error when it "relied solely on the face or the 'four corners' of the document"). The Supreme Court of New Mexico summarized the law of contract interpretation in New Mexico as follows:

The court may consider collateral evidence of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement in determining whether the language of the agreement is unclear. C.R. Anthony, 112 N.M. at 508-09, 817 P.2d at 242-43. If the evidence presented is so plain that no reasonable person could hold any way but one, then the court may interpret the meaning as a matter of law. Id. at 510, 817 P.2d at 244. If the court determines that the contract is reasonably and fairly susceptible of different constructions, an ambiguity exists. Vickers v. North Am. Land Dev., Inc., 94 N.M. 65, 68, 607 P.2d 603, 606 (1980). At that point, if the proffered evidence of surrounding facts and circumstances is in dispute, turns on witness credibility, or is susceptible of conflicting inferences, the meaning must be resolved by the appropriate fact finder ....

Mark V, 114 N.M. at 781, 845 P.2d at 1235.

ANALYSIS

The Court concludes that Ormrod did not breach a contract with KOB 4, because no contract exists. Further, KOB 4 has not properly stated a claim for promissory estoppel, because Ormrod did not make a legally enforceable promise. Accordingly, the Court will grant the Motion.

I. ORMROD DID NOT BREACH ANY CONTRACT.

The Court concludes that Ormrod did not breach any contract, because no contract exists. KOB 4 argues that a unilateral contract exists between itself and Ormrod. See Response at 6. According to KOB 4, Ormrod made an offer not to sue KOB 4 in exchange for KOB 4 removing from its website the allegedly defamatory news article, and KOB 4 accepted the offer by removing the relevant language. See Response at 6. Under New Mexico law, a unilateral contract is one "in which *1230the offeror makes a promise in exchange, not for a reciprocal promise by the offeree, but for some performance." Strata Production Co. v. Mercury Exploration Co., 1996-NMSC-016, ¶ 14, 121 N.M. 622, 916 P.2d 822, 827 (" Strata"). "In a unilateral contract, the offeree accepts the offer by undertaking the requested performance." Strata, 1996-NMSC-016, ¶ 14, 121 N.M. 622, 916 P.2d 822, 827. "Ordinarily, to be legally enforceable, a contract must be factually supported by an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent." Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co., 1993-NMSC-029, ¶ 7, 115 N.M. 665, 857 P.2d 776, 780.

Here, Ormrod did not make a promise -- an offer -- in exchange for a performance, so the parties never formed a unilateral contract. When Mr. Bregman called KOB 4, he "informed [KOB 4] that [KOB 4] had two options: remove from KOB.com within ten minutes the article containing the statement that Ormrod had been charged, or Ormrod would sue." Counterclaim ¶ 12, at 10. KOB 4 mischaracterizes this statement by arguing that Ormrod "made a promise not to sue KOB-TV if KOB-TV took down from KOB.com within ten minutes of his telephone call the article containing the statement that Ormrod had been charged."5 Counterclaim ¶ 13, at 10-11. That legal conclusion is at odds with KOB 4's factual allegation describing Ormrod's words, i.e., that Ormrod "informed [KOB 4] that [KOB 4] had two options: remove from KOB.com within ten minutes the article containing the statement that Ormrod had been charged, or Ormrod would sue." Counterclaim ¶ 12, at 10. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (requiring courts to accept a complaint's factual allegations but not its legal conclusions). KOB 4 paraphrases Ormrod's demand as a conditional statement -- specifically "if you remove the article, then I will not sue you" -- but the correct way to paraphrase Ormrod's demand as a conditional statement is "if you don't remove the article, then I will sue you," which is not logically equivalent to KOB 4's phrasing.

KOB 4's paraphrasing of Ormrod's demand represents an incorrect contrapositive of Ormrod's actual words. Logicians write conditional statements like "if A, then B" as A?B. "List of valid argument forms," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms (last viewed July 13, 2018). In this case, "A" refers to removing the article, and "B" refers to Ormrod suing KOB 4. "The contrapositive of any true proposition is also true." Mathwords.com, http://www.mathwords.com/c/contrapositive.htm (last viewed July 13, 2018). Creating a contrapositive requires "switching the hypothesis and conclusion of a conditional statement and negating both," Mathwords.com, http://www.mathwords.com/c/contrapositive.htm (last viewed July 13, 2018), which means changing on which side of the arrow the letters A and B are, and then negating both letters. The correct paraphrasing of Ormrod's demand as a conditional statement is "if you don't remove the article, then I will sue you," or ~A?B. The correct contrapositive of *1231Ormrod's statement is thus "if I do not sue you, then you removed the article," or ~B?A, and not "if you remove the article, then I will not sue you," or A ? ~B, as KOB 4 alleges.

Indeed, an important distinction exists between saying "if you remove the article, then I will not sue you" -- the incorrect contrapositive -- and saying "if I don't sue, then you removed the article" -- the correct contrapositive. The first statement says that a sufficient condition of not suing is removing the article. The second statement says only that a necessary condition of not suing is removing the article. To illustrate, one could say that, if the Houston Astros won the World Series, then they also won the American League Pennant. Winning the American League Pennant, however, is only a necessary condition of the Astros winning the World Series. Winning the American League Pennant is not sufficient. For the Astros to win the World Series, there are other necessary conditions, including winning four games in the World Series.

For these reasons, Ormrod's statement that, if KOB 4 did not remove the article, then he would sue, see Counterclaim ¶ 12, at 10, is not equivalent to saying that Ormrod "made a promise not to sue KOB-TV if KOB-TV took down from KOB.com within ten minutes of his telephone call the article containing the statement that Ormrod had been charged," Counterclaim ¶ 13, at 10-11. Because Ormrod did not promise not to sue KOB 4 if KOB 4 removed the news article, he did not make an offer for a unilateral contract. See Strata, 1996-NMSC-016, ¶ 14, 121 N.M. 622, 916 P.2d at 827 (explaining that a unilateral contract is one "in which the offeror makes a promise in exchange, not for a reciprocal promise by the offeree, but for some performance"). Because there is no offer, there is no contract for Ormrod to breach. See Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co., 1993-NMSC-029, ¶ 7, 115 N.M. 665, 857 P.2d at 780 (holding that, "[o]rdinarily, to be legally enforceable, a contract must be factually supported by an offer"); Resource Associates Grant Writing & Evaluation Services, Inc. v. Southampton Union Free School District, 193 F.Supp.3d 1200, 1248 (D.N.M. 2016) (Browning, J.)(explaining that, under New Mexico law, a breach-of-contract claim must allege "the existence of a valid and binding contract").6

II. ORMROD DID NOT MAKE A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE PROMISE.

The Court concludes that Ormrod did not promise not to sue KOB 4, and *1232therefore promissory estoppel does not apply. Under New Mexico law, promissory estoppel makes a promise enforceable when a complainant's reasonable, foreseeable, and substantial reliance on that promise makes its enforcement necessary to prevent injustice. See Strata, 1996-NMSC-016, ¶ 20, 121 N.M. 622, 916 P.2d at 828. If there is no promise, however, the doctrine is inapplicable. As explained above, KOB 4's argument that Ormrod "made a promise not to sue" KOB 4 if it removed the news article, Counterclaim ¶ 13, at 10-11, is not consistent with the facts KOB 4 alleges in its Counterclaim, see Counterclaim ¶ 12, at 10. Consequently, because Ormrod did not promise not to sue KOB 4, promissory estoppel is inapplicable.7 See Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 8:4, at 95 (4th ed. 2008) ("The binding thread in all the classes of [promissory estoppel] cases is the justifiable reliance of the promisee and the hardship involved in refusal to enforce the promise.")(emphases added).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Defendant KOB-TV, LLC's Counterclaim for Promissory Estoppel and Breach of Contract, filed May 21, 2018 (Doc. 77), is granted. Defendant KOB-TV, LLC's claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel in KOB-TV, LLC's Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaim, filed April 30, 2018 (Doc. 66), are dismissed with prejudice.