Nada a seventeen-year-old Electrotechnology Tafe Student in her final semester was thrilled to be accepted as an apprentice electrician working with a renowned construction company. After starting her job Nada found travelling to work very tiring and extremely time consuming as the company was situated two hours from her home by public transport. Nada saw an advertisement on social media by Fantastic Cycles Pty. Ltd. offering a great deal on e-bikes worth $3000.The Advertisement had a picture of the speedometer, which showed the bike travelling at 25 kilometres per hour (kph). The advertisement was accompanied by a voice over that said "Need to get somewhere quickly? Then the Fantastic Cycles e-bike is for you."

Nada decided the e-bike was an ideal solution to her problem. Using an e-bike meant Nada could save at least an hour getting to work being able to avoid bus and train connections. She also knew of alternative routes which avoided busy main roads and intersections. Nada intended to ride the e-bike at the legal limit of 10 kph on public roads but also wanted to use it off road at her family's hobby farm at full speed of 25 kph. Nada ordered a blue e-bike online. Nada provided a digital signature on the online contract and agreed to pay by monthly instalments. There was no mention in the contract about the top speed of the bike.

Nada took delivery of the bike and headed to work the next day at 10 kph. When Nada attempted to use the bike on her parents' hobby farm at the weekend, she found to her dismay that the bike would not go any faster than 10 kph. Nada took the e-bike back to the dealer. She asked the manager to refund her deposit and release her from the contract. The Sales Manager refused to refund Nada's money saying she had a valid contract that could not be terminated.

4B. Referring to case study 4A Explain whether Fantastic Cycles have breached s18 and any guarantees applicable under the Australian Consumer Law.

Use case references to support your conclusions.