Schwartzberger furniture store placed the following advertisement in the window of its shop at Kuala Lumpur: "Big mega super-duper sale: Luxurious leather sofa reduced from RM 50,000 to RM 3,000 for the

first 15 customers. Other groundbreaking bargains available in store"

On the day of the advertising promotion, Sindel is 13 th in the queue which was formed outside the shop. When the store opens, Sindel goes to the receptionist to claim a sofa set at the bargain price promised. She was disappointed to be told by the sales manager that the sale has ended and the price of the leather sofa had risen back to RM 50,000. Nevertheless, Sindel still shops around the store, believing that she could discover another bargain. She discovered a dining table is priced at RM 4,000. She told the sales manager that she wishes to purchase this item but was told that the price tag was inaccurate and that the actual price is RM 40,000. Sindel leaves the shop empty-handed after informing the sales manager that she would seek legal advice. With reference to the Contracts Act 1950, answer the following questions.

b) Advise Sindel whether she has a valid ground to file a legal action against Schwartzberger. Support your answer with relevant case law(s).