8. We revisit the case of Marcel and Yvonne that we looked at in an eadier tutorial topic relating to the parol evidence rule and collateral contracts. Here are facts: Marcel wants to buy a used car. He knows the make, model and colour of the car he wants to buy. He visits several car dealers who can supply the type of car he wants. In discussions with one dealer, Yvonne, she tells Marcel that if he buys the car from her, she would fit the car out with high quality new tyres. Marcel decides to buy the car from Yvonne, but the written agreement he signs with Wonne makes no mention of this promise. A month after the purchase is completed, and having driven 3,000 km in the car, Marcel is advised by his motor mechanic that the tyres on the car are actually second hand and of inferior quality. Marcel wants to make a claim against Yvonne. Required {a} Recall from earlier topic: explain why it would be difficult (though not impossible) for Marcel to sue Yvonne successfully for breach o1 contract. {b} Advise Marcel whether he can sue Wonne for misrepresentation. Guidelines for M 1m I Answer this as an IRAC question focusing on misrepresentation, rather than breach of contract. I Under the 'Rule' heading, you need to define misrepresentation and set out its elements, as well as refer to relevant cases. Also consider any rule of law that might prevent him from obtaining a remedy. (c) If Marcel wanted to sue Wonne under the Australian Consumer Law, would that law apply to this case, and if so, what would he need to establish? If he was successful, what remedies could he get against Yvonne