Arthur purchased a painting by Pro Hart, a famous artist. Arthur bought the painting from Sarah's Art Gallery, a shop in Neutral Bay, NSW for $30,000. Sarah described the painting to Arthur as an original by the famous artist, and in the contract of sale the artwork was similarly described, as an 'original' painting by Pro Hart.

A few weeks later, one of Arthur's friends [Roxana] brought the legendary artist himself to Arthur's house to meet Arthur and view the painting now hanging in Arthur's study. Upon seeing it, Pro Hart immediately exclaimed: "I didn't paint this, it is a cheap and nasty copy".

Arthur wants to sue Sarah for negligence, claiming as an art gallery owner she owed him a duty of care in relation to the painting being an original Pro Hart work. Roxana reminds Arthur that the sale contract included a term stating the artwork was original.

Required:

[a]Can Arthur claim damages from Sarah's Art Gallery under both tort lawandcontract law? Clearly state yes or no, and justify your response with a brief explanation.2 marks.

[b]Could Sarah's Art Gallery face any potential action under the Australian Consumer Law? Clearly state yes or no, and justify your response with a brief explanation.2 marks