Question 1

According to Article 6 (3)(5)(6) Chapter 2 of the Law on Competition Protection &

Monopoly Prevention, it is evident that both Goliath and Hercules, have contravened the

regulations thereof of the Law. This can be seen from the way they interact every lunch hour

and discuss matters that concern the running of the industry while the third party involved in

this case Westaways Airlines which is a minor shareholder is missing from the discussion.

This prompts the staff of all the companies to incur the weight of the lunch hour discussions

which is not agreed upon. The exchange of the price list between the two major players in the

field without including the minor players is in breach of article 6 (3) which provides that it is

prohibited to “supply goods or services with lower price than their cost price in a manner

causing serious harm to others or prevent entry of new persons into the market.” The

exchange of the price lists between Goliath and Hercules in a way harms the minor

Westaways as the conditions that takes place in the major airline also affects the minor airline

through the staff strikes.

The act of Hercules recommending the price lists that was abolished by Goliath is also in

breach of Article 6 (12) of the Law on Competition Protection & Monopoly Prevention which

prohibits the persuasion, incitement, and “enforcement of one or more stakeholders, capital

owners, director or employees of a competing organization or company by exerting suffrage,

transferring shares, disclosing secrets or similar methods to exercise an action which is

harmful to his/her/its competitor.” Hercules adopts the price list that Goliath abolishes a week

after its abolition in a bid to counter the measures put by the competing organization after the

they have seen that the competitor has been in a way “harmed” by their actions. It is in order

to state that the secrets of Goliath shared to Hercules were modified to ensure that the

repercussions that befell the former organization do not befall the latter.
The actions of the dominant organizations in this industry are also in breach of Article 14 that

states that “Misuse by one or more traders, entrepreneurs, companies or organization of

dominant circumstances and their influence in the market of goods or services across or part

of the country where they operate or misuse through understanding, agreements and contracts

with orders or through collective acts shall be totally prohibited. From an honest perspective,

the two dominant organizations, Goliath and Hercules are in breach of Chapter II of the Law

on Competition Protection & Monopoly Prevention through their deeds and actions. The

dropping of the lists by the Westaways airlines also breaches the second chapter as it

willingly did not adopt to the current price list that is set by the competitors to be in a free and

fair service delivery. Therefore, the consumers in a way are affected by the negligence hence

the workers strike that was experienced.

Question 2

a.

The Oman Consumer Protection Law provides for the different legal rights to various

parties including buyers, sellers and the final consumers. In this case Manal is the buyer

of the given hair dryer which developed issues in the initial days of usage. There are

various legal rights that Manal have against the store that sold her the hair dryer. Upon

arrival to the store, Manal requested to be advised on the kind of hair dryer that were

available at the store. The first right that Manal had against the store is the right to gain

access to correct information on the commodities being purchased or used or the services

provided. Upon enquiry, Suma should have referred Manal to an experienced attendant in

the store to help Manal choose on the right hair dryer to purchase. Instead, she was denied

her right to access correct information by being offered another alternative to what she

wanted. According to Article (16) of the Oman Consumer Protection Law, Manal is
entitled to replacement of her hair dryer or a refund of the value of the commodity

without any additional costs provided that Manal shall provide the proof of purchase of

the hair dryer. As per article 14 B of the same law, Manal had the right to choose the hair

dryer she wanted but her right was swayed away by Suma through the convincing that the

Shot Hair Dryer was more effective as it was available in the sister to Suma’s house.

Manal has also the right to represent the interests of the customer to store after the

formulation of consumer protection policies.

b.

The consumer who is the customer to Manal has also various rights according to the

Oman Consumer Protection Law that she can use against the store. The first right that the

customer has against the store the right that guarantees the customer’s heath and safety

upon receiving any service from a commodity that was bought from the store and safety

from damages or harms upon the normal and ordinary use of this commodity or service as

per Article 15 (D). The customer also has the right to receive fair compensation for

damages suffered by the property thereof described as the hair dryer which resulted from

the ordinary use of the hair dryer by Manal. With the right interpretation, Article 17 of the

Law can apply to the customer against the store in that they are entitled to receive a

guarantee from the provider of the hair dryer and it should continue in favor of the

customer when the ownership transferred to Manal. Taking a thorough look and the Law

governing consumer protection it is possible for both Manal and the customer to make a

lawsuit against the store. This ranges from the type of services the store offers and the

commodities therein. The service providers who are attendants seem not to have received

enough training to conduct their duties effectively and efficiently as per the law.

Therefore, there a chance for justice for the customer and Manal.