Answer no.

1:

Advertisement:

A newspaper advertisement detailed the pottery, which was priced at 300 OMR. It must be
determined whether this is Laila's proposal or just an invitation to offer. The general assumption
is that advertising will be interpreted as the latter. This is because the intent of the contract is
objectively assessed by the court. Although Laila may intentionally make it as an offer
subjectively, it can be seen objectively that this is not the case due to the problem of multiple
acceptances. Laila has only one collection of pottery, so it is impossible for her to plan to sign a
contract with everyone who responds to her advertisement.

Jolly:

Since it has been determined that the advertisement itself is not an offer, it is necessary to
distinguish the offer from the conversation between Laila and Jolly. When Laila told Jolly that he
could buy the series for 600 OMR. Since Jolly is an avid collector, Laila offered the pottery to
Jolly at a lower price? Judging from the nature of the transaction, it seems that it is intentionally
bound by law, so the offer is likely to be valid. The offer is accepted, the rule is that it must be
explicitly accepted and cannot be changed. However, Jolly did not immediately accept the offer
but offered Laila a counter-offer of OMR 150. This would destroy the original offer, so Jolly will
no longer have the right to go back and accept Laila's offer to sell pottery for OMR 200. Instead,
this will be a new offer that Laila can accept. Jolly has the right to withdraw the offer at any time
before Laila responds to him, provided that such withdrawal has been communicated to Laila?

As it was left between Jolly and Laila, there was no contract to sell pottery. Judging from the
nature of the transaction, it seems that it is intentionally bound by law, so the offer is likely to be
valid. The offer is accepted, the rule is that it must be explicitly accepted and cannot be changed.
However, Jolly did not immediately accept the offer but offered Laila a counter-offer of OMR
150.
Dolly:

Since Laila’s advertisement does not constitute a valid offer, it is first necessary to distinguish
whether the offer is made at any time in the communication between Laila and Dolly. When
Dolly contacted Laila about pottery and asked her for the lowest price she was willing to accept,
Laila's response did not constitute an offer. This is because the general rule is that a minimum
price statement is neither an offer nor an acceptance. The proposal here is that Dolly is trying to
accept what he believes to be Laila's proposal. When Dolly replied that he was willing to pay
OMR 275, this constituted an offer that Laila was willing to accept. However, at the end of the
conversation, Laila has never offered such an acceptance. Therefore, there is no contract between
Dolly and Laila.

Jassem:

The dialogue between Laila and Jassem is more direct in distinguishing between a clear offer and
acceptance. Jassem’ offer to Laila to purchase a pottery collection for OMR 400 seemed to be a
valid offer, and Laila expressed his clear acceptance of this. Although Laila and Jassem are
friends, the nature of the discussion is not only a social or domestic agreement but because of the
nature of the facts, the presumption that there is no intention to establish a legal relationship can
be refuted. After successfully determining these elements, it is necessary to determine valid
considerations to inform Laila whether she must sell to Jassem. This reflects the self-discipline
basis of contract law and the court's respect for contract privacy. This means that although Laila
has basically made a bad deal, the court will not protect Jassem by insisting that Jassem sign a
contract for the full value of the goods.

The consideration is defined in Misa v Currie as "certain rights, benefits, profits or benefits
arising from one party, or certain restraints, damages, losses or liabilities are given, suffered or
assumed by the other party". It can be seen here that Jassem paid OMR 400 in exchange for
pottery and vice versa. The general rule is that consideration must be sufficient but not
necessarily sufficient. This reflects the self-discipline basis of contract law and the court's respect
for contract privacy. This means that although Laila has basically made a bad deal, the court will
not protect Jassem by insisting that Jassem sign a contract for the full value of the goods.

From the analysis of the facts, it is obvious that there is a valid contract between Laila and
Jassem. Therefore, Laila must perform the sales contract; otherwise, Jassem can bring a lawsuit
for breach of contract.

Answer no. 2:

In order to form an effective contract, certain components need to exist. The most basic of these
is that there must be a valid offer and a clear acceptance of the offer, which forms the basis of the
contract. This needs to be accompanied by the intention of establishing legal relationships and
effective consideration. Without these, there is no contract. Scenarios will be evaluated to
identify related parties and possible offers and acceptances to determine whether any potential
contracts can be formed.

The rule of acceptance of offer is that it must be explicitly accepted and cannot be changed or
modified. However, In this case, Sumaiya accepted the first offer i:e; for apartment but she
offered Naila a counter-offer to the second offer by showing her willingness to take the car for
OMR 5,000 instead of OMR 6,000, whereas Naila refused for that transaction. This would
destroy the original offer, so Sumaiya will no longer have the right to go back and accept Naila's
offer to sell car for OMR 6000. Instead, this will be a new offer that Naila can accept. Sumaiya
has the right to withdraw the offer at any time before Naila responds to her, provided that such
withdrawal has been communicated to Naila.

Hence, there was no contract to sell of Apartment and Car between Naila and Sumaiya.