Duckling Electronics is a company that produces electronics to help parents look after their children. The company sells a range of expensive devices from its website, including the DuckWeigh, the iDuck, the DuckPuddle and the DuckChair.

The company is about to launch a new product called the DuckEye, which is a baby monitoring device equipped with a camera and microphone which can be accessed from the company's app. The company will sell two versions of the DuckEye: "DuckEye One" which will be sold for $100 and comes with a basic microphone and camera; and "DuckEye Two" which will be sold for $200 and comes with a high definition microphone and camera.

Donald, a manager at the company, has asked you to answer some legal questions that he is concerned about before the product is launched:

1. The product's terms and conditions currently state: "The parties agree that no action may be brought under the Australian Consumer Law in respect of any rights or obligations arising under this agreement." Is this allowed under the Australian Consumer Law?

2. The company has been heavily advertising the DuckEye One online before its launch and the company expects to sell 10,000 units of this product. However, due manufacturing issues, only 100 of the DuckEye One will be available at launch. The company plans to automatically redirect any customers who attempt to select the DuckEye One to the DuckEye Two. Will there be any issues with the company doing this?

3. The company has been heavily advertising that the DuckEye will have a battery life of 50 hours. In one advertisement it states: "No Duck stays awake longer than this Duck - 50 hours without sleep. Wow. Quack." Testing done by the company has shown that the DuckEye only lasts 25 hours at most. Will the company be fine to sell the product and continue with this advertising anyway?

Provide an answer for each of Donald's questions. Use the IRAC structure and refer to the Australian Consumer Law and any relevant cases in your answers.