3 (15 Marks) Beatrice is 91 and is losing her sight and health. Her husband, Karl, on whom she had relied for many years, died recently. Karl left Beatrice his home and the house is valued at $450,000. Beatrice receives a pension, and the proceeds from small investments that Karl had made on her behalf. Beatrice receives a weekly income of about $400. After Karl's death, Beatrice is very reliant on her son, Ethan, for all her other needs. Ethan convinced Beatrice to approach Fast Finance and enter into an agreement with them to borrow $60,000 for a business venture that Ethan wanted to enter into. After Fast Finance investigated her financial background, it approved her loan based on her ownership of her house. As security for the loan, a mortgage was taken out over Beatrice's house. When Beatrice went to Fast Finance's local branch with Ethan to sign the documents for the loan, Emilio, an employee of Fast Finance told her that as the loan was for less than $100,000, it was not necessary for her to consult a solicitor. Emilio also told Beatrice that there was no need to take the papers away to read or to get independent advice on them. Ethan then told Beatrice that he had read through the documents, and that there was nothing to worry about. However, Beatrice was not told what would happen if Ethan failed to make repayments on the loan, nor did she think to ask. The repayments on the loan--that is, principal plus interest- -are $2,000 per calendar month and in fac exceed Beatrice's monthly pension entitlements. Three months into the loan, Ethan defaulted, and Fast Finance is now threatening to sell Beatrice's house. Advise Beatrice. Your answer should refer to both the common law position and the Australian Consumer Law ss 18 and 21