A) Legal issues: The legal issue in this case is that, Aarons neighbour Michael contacted Aaron on the day when he put the advertisement for selling his Range Rover for RM85K i.e. on 1st June. Michael has not made any of the statement that showed his consent of accepting the offer extended by Aaron and neither had he made any counter offer. He simply stated that he would get back to Aaron. Chloe, an another customer to the Aarons car, made a counter offer of RM80K on 3rd June to which Aaron replied that he would be interested in selling the car at RM83K to which Chloe replied that she will ask her husband. Aaron asked her to contact him at 6 Pm in the evening. Chloe tried to contact Aaron at 7:30 Pm and his phone was switched off. She tried to contact him at his work but he did not pick up the call as he was in conference so she left voice message where she expressed her willingness to purchase the car at RM 83K but Aaron failed to listen to that message as he was busy with his work. On 4th June Vishn accepted an offer of RM85K which was the offer made by Aaron and the price being desired by him. B) Introduction From the above discussion, we can infer that there has been an enquiry about the vehicle by the neighbour of Aaron who is Michael on the day when Aaron has put the advertisement for the sale of the car. He did not replied back in the time mentioned by him. Chloe contacted Aaron on 3rd June and accepted the offer of Aaron for RM83K but Aaron was unable to receive the message as his phone was switched off when Chloe tried to call Aaron at 7:30 Pm i.e. one and half hour later than the Aarons mentioned time. Vishn accepted the offer on 4th June for the originally stated price of Aaron. C)Body Since, Michael stated that he would contact Aaron if he is interested and did not stated that when he would contact, there is no legal obligation of Aaron to Michael as time limit has not been mentioned by Michael for the acceptance of the offer. Chloe was being guided by Aaron to call him back at 6 Pm but she failed to do so, hence Aaron is again not obliged to Chloe as she did not maintain the time limit that has been prescribed by Aaron. Vishn has accepted the offer at the price that is being offered by Aaron. Thus, Vishn is the one who has a strong holding on the case as he did not took any time to accept the offer and hence Aarons selling of car to Vishn is not against law. D) conclusion A per the act 382 of sale of goods act 1957, the offer extended by the owner of the product should be accepted by the person who wants to purchase the product offered by the owner within the predefined period of time. Michael and Chloe failed to respond to Aaron on the prescribed time and Vishn responded to Aaron on time with the expected and offered price of Aaron, hence Vishn is the one who should get the car and the selling of car by Aaron to vishn is according to the Malaysian law of sale of goods act, thus, he is not liable to Michael and Chloe. I need this to be 3000 words , can anyone help?