Nalini wants to lose some weight. She sees a half page advertisement for a weight loss program by Perfect Body Pty Ltd (Perfect Body) that suits her because it mentions gluten free meals, and Nalini cannot eat gluten. The advertisement reads: "Lose up to 10 kgs of weight for $10 program fee including all meals! Gluten free options available." In small print at the bottom of the advertisement are the words "Special meal requests will incur additional cost". In the centre of the advertisement is a photo of Paris Holly, a famous model, and referred to as "one of the program's ambassadors". Nalini is excited and visits Perfect Body's shop to sign up for the program. To her disappointment, after signing up the weight loss program, she finds out that she must pay extra for the meals (at a minimum cost of $300 per week even for standard meals), and that not all meals in the program have a gluten-free option. Nalini also discovers from reliable sources that Paris Holly is in fact, not an ambassador of the program. Use legislation (and any relevant case law) to answer questions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Do not use common law and/or equitable principles. q2. Has Perfect Body Pty Ltd misled Nalini under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) in relation to the weight loss program Nalini has signed up? (10) q3. Can Perfect Body Pty Ltd argue that they had no intention to mislead Nalini, because Nalini should have read the small print at the bottom of the advertisement? (3) After Nalini's disappointment with the weight loss program, she considers buying an exercise bike. She visits Fitness Fit Galore and speaks to a sales assistant, Mai. After a long discussion, Mai recommends the "Xtreme Fitness Bike 9000" model as suitable for Nalini's needs. Mai particularly recommends it because it is the most popular fitness bike on the market, with the best pedal straps that reduce the risk of slippage. Nalini purchases the bike for $1,500 and she can't wait to start riding on her new exercise bike. After riding the bike for 10 minutes, the pedal straps snap and Nalini falls off the bike, breaking her hip. The bike is also damaged beyond repair. Nalini goes back to Fitness Fit Galore to return the damaged bike and seek a refund. Mai shows her a clause on the contract she signed, which reads: "The liability of Fitness Fit Galore is limited to the repair of the goods only. Fitness Fit Galore does not provide refunds to its customers". q4. Would the contract of sale between Fitness Fit Galore and Nalini be considered a 'consumer' contract under the Australian Consumer Law? (3) q5. Has Fitness Fit Galore breached any statutory implied guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law? If so, what remedies would be available to Nalini? (10) q6. Would the exclusion clause in the written contract exclude Fitness Fit Galore from liability for breach of statutory implied guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law? (2)