Lebogang owns a shoe retail store in Gaborone. She regularly receives consignments of shoes from Takutaku Wholesalers. In the last six months of 2010, Lebogang had been in negotiations with Takutaku about the price of the shoes supplied to her. Takutaku wished to increase prices by 10% to account for increased costs of materials. Lebogang had been negotiating for only a 5% increment.In February 2011, Takutaku sent a letter to Lebogang stating as follows:‘We have considered your position. We are prepared to offer you the usual shoe consignment at a compromise increment of 7·5% unless we hear otherwise.’In March 2011, Takutaku sent a consignment of shoes to Lebogang. The unit price on each pair of shoes supplied had been increased by 7·5%. Lebogang did not reply to Takutaku.In September 2011, Takutaku sent Lebogang a letter of demand claiming payment for the March 2011 consignment. Lebogang then responded as follows:‘You will be well aware that negotiations between us were inconclusive. Whilst your company advocated a 10% increment, I had maintained that a 5% increase was the maximum that I was prepared to accept. I am not liable to you on the new price.’Takutaku disagrees with the position that Lebogang has taken and wishes to sue Lebogang for the amount due on the consignment of shoes delivered in March 2011.Required:Advise Takutaku. (10 marks)