mage under any circumstances. Exemption clauses must be express terms. It refers to one party should draw other party’s attention and describe whenever other party asserts a claim. On the basis of the case, Patricia did not remind William which allowed occurrence of damage. Inasmuch as intentional or gross negligence of organizer causing exhibitor’s loss, it runs counter to the basic spirit of civil law and contract law, which means fairness, impartiality and honesty. Consequently, clause 5(a) is not valid. Likewise, it is mentioned that the document involves entire agreements between organizer and exhibitor in clause 8. Patricia committed to William overall insurance policy of exhibitors in their consultative contract, while the contract mentioned nothing about insurance or security arrangements. Therefore, clause 8 violates the agreements their convention, and it is unilateral meaning of organizer, so it is invalid.
Australian Consumer Law澳大利亚消费者法
As mentioned above, fraudulent misrepresentation is one specific type of false representations. In section 29(b), it applies to the statement that services are of a particular standard, quality, value or grade . In addition, in section 29(m), it concerns the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, right or remedy . Patricia told William the exhibition got two insurance policies to protect his goods, whereas contact pointed out the organizer has no obligations to protect his property resulting in loss to William. Hence, there two misrepresentations breach the statements in section 29(b) and (m) in Australian Consumer Law.
Remedy补救
William can get his money back. Based on Common Law, damages are available for a fraudulent misrepresentation under the tort of deceit . Patricia misrepresented William the goods of exhibitors would be protected. In the meantime, these misrepresentations also act against the Australian Consumer Law. On an equitable remedy, rescission is to put the deceived parties back to their original positions. The deceived party has a choice to receive or affirm the contract, if they can back to the position before entering into contract. William persisted in returning his money. Apparently, he wants to accept the contract, which indicates that the contract between Patricia and William is inexistence. Therefore, William can get his money return in accordance with Common Law and Australian Consumer Law.
Issue
The second issue of the case problem is whether or not William can claim his stolen stamps and coins.
In view of the foregoing analysis, Patricia misrepresented William which led William suffering the loss. William participated in the exhibition because he was delegated by SSC Company in order to meet other enthusiasts and sell his rare stamps and coins. Since the organizer has no insurance or security arrangements as he said before, William had no ways to claim his stolen losses. Assuming the exhibition as all-round as the organizer said, goods of exhibitor could be protected and operation of SSC Company would not get any profit even resulting in a loss, and exhibitor are unable to claim to insurance company. According to Common Law and section 236 under Australian Consumer Law, it demonstrates that a person might apply to a court for damages to compensate for
