Emma owns Fantastic Toys, a retail shop selling children's toys, including the batteryoperated Speedy Sonic remote control car. Aloka, shopping at Fantastic Toys for the rst time, purchases a Speedy Sonic toy for her daughter. Five days later. while Aloka's daughter is playing with the toyr car, its battery compartment quickly overheats. The toy car catches on re, and that re causes extensive damage to the living room in Aioka's house. Fortunately. Aloka and her daughter were able to escape and no-one was injured. Aloka takes the burnt remains of the toy car, and her receipt, back to Fantastic Toys. She requests a refund, as well as compensation for the re damage caused to her house. Emma refuses. pointing to the following clause on Aloka's receipt [Receipt reads: 'CONDITIDNS OF REFURN: Please retain this receipt as proof of purchase. Returns can only be made within 28 days of purchase. Items must be unopened and in resalable condition for any retums.'] Emma tells Aloka that because the toy car is not unopened and is not in resalable condition. it is not able to be returned. according to this clause on the receipt. Emma claims that this exclusion clause means that her store is protected from all forms of liability, and that her store is not liable to refund the purchase price or compensate Aloka for the damage caused to her house. Can Emma rely on the 'cONDITIONS OF RETURN' clause (the exclusion clause} to avoid liability, according to the law of contract? Do not discuss the Australian Consumer Law. Please refer to any relevant legal cases andfor legislation to support your arguments, and ensure that you fully explain your answer. Type your answer in the box below. {6 marks.)