Melbourne has held an impressive firework display every New Year's Eve for over a century. Jack was very keen to ensure he had the best possible view for New Year's Eve 2019 as he planned to propose marriage to his girlfriend. He researched extensively before settling on a penthouse suite at the Star Hotel ('the SH'). The SH had the following on its website: The New Year's Eve view from our penthouse suite is the best in Melbourne! Jack emailed the SH on 5 January 2019: I would like to book your penthouse suite on 31 December 2019 as I believe the view of the fireworks is amazing! Would you be able to provide a Sleeping Dog mattress? The SH replied: Yes, indeed Sir, we have the best view in Melbourne. The cost of the suite will be $2000, with a deposit of $1000 payable on booking. The mattress will be an additional $400, to be paid in full beforehand. Jack duly paid $1400 to secure the booking on 10th of January and SH arranged to hire the Sleeping Dog mattress. When 31 December arrived, Jack checked in to the penthouse suite whereupon he was shocked to discover that a neighbouring skyscraper obscured the view of the city skyline. On his way out of the room to complain to Reception, he noticed a sign on the back of the penthouse door that stated: "The Star Hotel takes no responsibility for fireworks visibility from this room. The Melbourne City Council chooses the location of displays." Jack left the hotel in a rage, his night ruined. a) Required: Advise Jack whether he can avoid the contract with the SH, and on which grounds. Advise Jack of any remedies available. Refer to case law AND legislation in your answer. [10 marks] LAW2442 Commercial Law Semester Two Deferred RMIT Classification: Trusted b) Assume that Jack and the SH have mediated their dispute. The result is that Jack will have another room on 31 December 2020 (the following year) at a discounted pre-paid rate of $500 that does have a view of the fireworks. Unfortunately, on this occasion Melbourne City Council cancelled the fireworks due to the pandemic on 20 December and Jack wants the return of the $500 from the SH. Jack did not check in on 31 December. Required: Advise Jack if he can secure the return of his pre-payment. Refer only to common law principles and cases. [6 marks] c) It is now January 2021. Like many others, Jack was depressed by all the weight he had put on during the endless Melbourne lockdowns. His fiance has broken off the engagement saying, 'You are too fat for me." Jack made a New Year's resolution to lose weight and found a gym nearby his home. Jack asked the salesperson whether he could trial the gym for a week, but he was told this would undermine his weight loss journey. Jack told the salesperson about his mental health problems and the broken engagement. Jack was impressed by all the slim and fit clients and believed the salesperson's promises that he would soon look like that too, so he signed the contract the salesperson handed him. The contract included the following terms: Term1: The client will pay $250 per month for a minimum period of two years, irrespective of whether the client attends the gym. Term2: The gym can change the terms of this contract at any time, without the consent of the other party. After two weeks, Jack had had enough and no longer wished to attend the gym. On careful reading of the contract, he was shocked to discover the terms of the contract. The gym is insisting on its right to enforce the contract. Required: You are an advisor at the ACCC (Australian Consumer and Competition Commission) which enforces the Australian Consumer Law, who Jack has consulted about the enforceability of the contract. Advise Jack.