as they entered YYZu. Christian poured the rst bottle of hand sanitiser into the dispenser and noticed that it was like water. Worried about the health of his customers Christian arranged for the sanitiser to be independently tested and the test conrmed that there were no disinfectant properties at all in the product and a near zero percentage of alcohol. The report concluded that the sanitiser Christian purchased was useless in killing Viruses and germs when customers used it on their hands. Christian is furious, he bought the product from HealthE, and clearly explained the purpose of the sanitiser to the assistant. The pharmacist at HealthE told Christian that not only was this product 75% alcohol, it was also the 'best hand sanitiser in the world\". Both the 75% alcohol content and the statement, 'best hand sanitiser in the world' were advertised on HealthE's website, on the product itself and in the paper brochures in store. Christian has paid the invoice for the sanitiser and asks for your advice. He wants to know if HealthE would be liable under s18 Australian Consumer Law (ACL) which is Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (the CCA). Christian also asks what he should do with the sanitiser as there was a sign stating 'no refunds under any circumstances' at the counter when he paid for the product. Do not address sanctions or penalties related to HealthE. Getting Started: For the avoidance of doubt, please ignore any real (or imagined) issues re: 0 landlord/tenancy, Qld real estate or other eauivalencies including COVlD 19 temporary changes 0 Agency assume this not to he at issue on these facts 0 Any formalities for executing the existing lease- assume all steps were fully compliant Focus primarily on the major issues that may be relevant to this including breach, estoppel, collateral contract, termination, damages, 518 Australian Consumer Law (AC1) which is Schedule 2 to the Competition and ConsumerAct 2010 (the CCA), pu'ery. When researching 518.461, remember that before 2010, the relevant legislation was contained in 352 Trade Practices Act and as a general rule, cases dealing with 552 TPA are applicable to 318 ACL. On that basis, cases dealing with s52 TPA can be cited in support of your arguments. In preparing, you can read the materials on offer/acceptance and consideration, estoppel, ACL s18 and breach, and (at least) summaries of the following: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boats (1953}. Chappel & Co ltd v Nestle Co ltd {1960}. Still: v Myriclr (1809}. Central lono'on Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd (1991). Waltons Stores ir Maher IJe Maintiendrai v Quaglia (1980}