A valid contract is formed when there is an offer made by one party, accepted by the other
party, accompanied by consideration (an exchange of something of value) and the intention
to create legal relations. The offer must be clear, specific, and communicated to the offeree,
who then must accept the offer unconditionally and communicate their acceptance to the
offeror. Consideration demonstrates the commitment of both parties to the agreement and
intention to create legal relations ensures that the contract is legally binding. The presence
of these four elements ensures that the contract is enforceable in a court of law. As stated in
the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880), an offer can be defined as a statement of the
terms on which the offeror is willing to be bound, made with the intention that it shall become
binding as soon as it is accepted by the offeree.

   The distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat is important because it has a
significant impact on the legal weight and the roles of the parties involved. An offer, when
accepted, creates a binding agreement between the parties, whereas an invitation to treat is
simply an invitation for the other party to make an offer. An offer can be made orally, in
writing or by conduct, and the words used by the party making the offer play a crucial role in
determining whether a statement constitutes an offer or an invitation to treat. For example, in
the case of Storer v Manchester City Council, the words "willing to sell" indicated a clear
intention to be bound by an acceptance, which meant that the statement was considered an
offer. On the other hand, in the case of Gibson v Manchester City Council, the words "may
be prepared to sell" indicated that the party was merely exploring the possibility of entering
into an agreement and thus constituted an invitation to treat. It is important to consider the
intention of the party making the statement, as well as the context in which the statement
was made, in order to determine whether a statement constitutes an offer or an invitation to
treat. For example, in order to determine Rockett's intention, one must consider the words
used and the context in which they were used. If Rockett used words similar to "offering to
sell a laptop," this would indicate a clear intention to enter into a contract upon acceptance of
his terms, whereas if his words were similar to "may be prepared to sell," this would indicate
a mere negotiation stage and an invitation to treat. In conclusion, the distinction between an
offer and an invitation to treat is crucial in determining the legal weight and the roles of the
parties involved. By examining the words used and the context in which they were used, one
can determine whether a statement constitutes an offer or an invitation to treat and the legal
consequences that follow.

   The issue of acceptance is prevalent in the problem question as there were two different
responses from Drax and Gamora after Rockett made the offer to sell the laptop. Drax
immediately responded to the email offering to sell the laptop, which shows acceptance was
communicated. However, he also requested for mere information by asking if Rockett would
accept the money for the laptop in instalments over the course of four months. This creates
confusion as to whether acceptance was made or not. The legal principle for acceptance
with request for mere information states that once a request for mere information is made,
the original offer will still stand. This was confirmed in the case of Stevenson v McLean,
where the court ruled that a request for mere information does not amount to a counteroffer,
and therefore the original offer remains open for acceptance. In this case, Drax's request for
information does not negate his acceptance of Rockett's offer to sell the laptop. It is
important to note that Rockett had the right to revoke the offer, but it was only effective when
communicated to Drax. The situation is similar to the case of Stevenson v McLean where the
claimants sent a telegram on Monday morning asking if the defendant agreed to delivery
over two months, and if not, how long he could give. The defendant did not respond and sold
the warrants to a third-party later that day. Before he informed the claimant of this, they sent
another telegram in the afternoon accepting the defendant's offer. The court held that
McLean was liable as a contract was formed, which highlights the importance of clear and
effective communication in the formation of contracts.
   On the other hand, Gamora's response to Rockett's email regarding the sale of the laptop
created another issue in the problem question. Gamora contacted Rockett indicating that
she was willing to change the original offer of 500$. Her actions can be recognized as giving
a counter offer, which effectively changes or terminates the original offer. According to the
general rule, once a counter offer is made, the original offer no longer stands and cannot be
accepted by the offeree, which in this case is Rockett. This can be further supported by the
case of Hyde v Wrench, where the defendant made an offer to sell a house to the claimant
for a certain sum. The claimant responded with a counter offer for a lower sum, which the
defendant rejected. The court held that the defendant's rejection of the counter offer
terminated the original offer, making it impossible for the claimant to accept it. Similarly,
Rockett's failure to respond to Gamora's counter offer and subsequent sale of the laptop to
Starlord shows that acceptance was not communicated and the original offer was effectively
terminated.

    The third issue that can be brought up from the problem question is whether there was a
breach of contract by Rockett towards Drax and Gamora. From the third paragraph, it is
clear that Drax had a binding agreement with Rockett, as shown by his immediate response
to the email offering to sell the laptop. This acceptance communicated by Drax shows that
Rockett had breached the contract with Drax when he sold the laptop to Starlord without
communication of revocation before acceptance. This goes against the general rule of
revocation, which states that revocation of an offer can take place any time before
acceptance is communicated. The case of Payne v Cave provides a useful illustration of the
implications of a breach of contract. In this case, the defendant made an offer to sell goods
to the claimant, who accepted the offer. However, the defendant revoked the offer without
communicating before the claimant had a chance to fulfill their obligations under the
contract. The court held that the defendant was in breach of contract as the revocation was
invalid. This highlights the importance of clear and effective communication in the formation
and revocation of contracts. On the other hand, from Gamora's point of view, there was no
breach of contract as there was no binding agreement between them. This emphasizes the
significance of having a clear and mutual agreement between all parties involved in a
contract.

   The last issue that arose from the problem question is the question of whether the sale
Rockett made with Starlord was valid. To understand the significance of this question, one
can look to the case of Thomas v Thomas. In this case, Thomas agreed to sell a horse to the
defendant, but later revoked the offer. The defendant argued that they had already provided
consideration in the form of a deposit on the horse, making the revocation invalid. The court
held that the deposit constituted sufficient consideration, even though it was only a small
fraction of the total price of the horse. This ruling established that consideration must be
sufficient, but need not be adequate, meaning that as long as the consideration offered by
one party is of some value, it can be considered valid. In the present case, Starlord's
payment of 400$ constitutes sufficient consideration, making the sale with Rockett valid.

In conclusion, rockett should have communicated more about the termination of the offer
or contract prior to Drax before selling it to Starlord because he breached the binding
contract between them. However, Gamora is not as affected as she failed to communicate
her acceptance and Rockett didn’t respond to her offer. Therfore, Rockett lacks the legal
right to sell the laptop to a third party, Starlord, as he will be sued my Drax and held
contractually liable for a breach of contract.