Foot Traffic manufactures carpets for commercial and household use using wool purchased from Moral Fibres and sells these carpets both direct and via independent retailers. A new retailer 'RugRats' opened in Sydney in Spring. The RugRats purchasing officer spoke with Foot Traffic's sales manager about their products and explained that they needed top of the line carpets that were suitable for household use and were stain resistant. The Foot Traffic sales manager assured RugRats that their products were suitable for household use and were specifically treated to be stain resistant. RugRats ordered a range of carpet for immediate delivery.

RugRats leases a show room in a well-known shopping centre and decides to refurbish with some modern looking chairs purchased from Uruk-hai Furniture. Unfortunately, within a month of opening the new show room, a customer comes in visibly distressed. They had purchased new carpet from RugRats however the carpet had caused their child to suffer a terrible rash, similar to a chemical burn, that required hospital treatment. When investigated it turns out that the chemical used to treat the carpet to make it stain resistant, when used in high concentrations, can trigger serious reactions in young children. Carpet treated with this chemical is not suitable for household use and should only be used in commercial settings.

The RugRats shop assistant ushers the upset customer to one of the new chairs in the showroom. Unfortunately, as the customer sat down, the chair legs gave way. The shop assistant apologised profusely and after hours checked the other chairs - they all had the same problem - the plastic legs are too weak to take the weight of an average sized adult. The customer is suing RugRats.

If RugRats can bring a claim against Uruk-hai, what is the most appropriate claim and remedy?

Group of answer choices

s 58 and a remedy under s 259(2)

s 55 and a remedy under s 236

s 54 and a remedy under s 236

s 54 and a remedy under s 259(3)