Georgina, who lives in London, owns an Art Gallery called 'Clios Art' and buys paintings from other Art dealers to exhibit in her gallery. In the spring of 2018, Georgina bought a number of paintings from another art dealer, Jakob, who had sold paintings to Georgina before and visited her gallery on a number of occasions.In the contract for the sale of the paintings, Jakob had included a clause, written in the same font as the rest of the contract, but appearing as 'Clause 41.1' of 87 clauses in total. It appeared on page 18 of the contract. The clause stated 'if the paintings are not created by the stated artist, the seller will not be liable for any damage, breach of any statutory implied terms, or loss to reputation whatsoever'.

The price for the paintings was a total of 5 million and it was agreed that they would be delivered the following Monday. The contract of sale was signed by Georgina and Jakob at the gallery. Just as Jakob was about to leave, he fell over a pile of wooden frames at the exit, breaking his ankle and ripping his expensive Brioni Vanquish suit. A sign over the door read 'management accept no liability for loss or damage whatsoever or howsoever caused whilst you are on our premises'.

On the Monday, the paintings arrived, and Georgina, after consulting her colleague Robert, realised that two of the paintings were not by the stated artists but were accurate counterfeit copies. Georgina was now very angry and decided to sue Jakob under the Sale of Goods Act s13 and 14 and for loss of reputation as news had leaked out that she had purchased fake paintings. Jakob decided to deny the claim due to the exclusion clause at 41.1 and counter-sue for the damage he sustained at the gallery.

Georgina's lawyer Christos suggested that Georgina should still sue Jakob, and not to be concerned by the counter-claim due to her own exclusion clause on the wall at the gallery.

*Advise Georgina as to whether Christos is correct.Give examples of 4 cases and 2 acts not including the Sale of Goods Act.*