On 19 April 2014, Badul went to the salesroom of Portal Computers Limited ("PCL") where a PCL salesman named Stephen Chang attended to him. Badul told Stephen that he needed a computer for his wife. Badul explained to Stephen that as both, he (Badul) and his wife, were computer illiterate, he would not even ask the price of the computer unless it came with after-sales service that included repairs to the computer at his home if and when these were necessary. Stephen told Badul that there was a "Portal" brand computer that came with a package just for people in his situation. He said that with that computer, Badul could purchase a "3-year on-site total warranty". Stephen explained to Badul that if repairs were needed during the currency of the 3-year on-site warranty, these would be effected by the PCL's staff in Badul's home. Stephen clarified that during the life of the 3-year on site warranty, the purchaser would not be charged for parts or labor or transport. Badul was informed that to avail himself of the 3-year on-site total warranty, all he needed to do was call a designated phone number and the PCL's Technical Support Services Division ("PCLSSD") would swing into action. (All of Stephen's statements regarding the 3-year on-site total warranty are hereafter referred to collectively as "Stephen's promise").

Badul was very happy and agreed to purchase a Portal computer for $17,200 and the 3-year on-site total warranty for another $3,288. Stephen then prepared what he termed an "an order form". The order form listed the specifications of the computer, the total cost thereof ($17,200) and incorporated the following item, "3-year on-site total warranty-- $3,288". Badul signed the order form and was told that the computer would be delivered to his house within the week. No document relating to the 3-year on-site total warranty was shown to Badul before he signed the order form. The agreement between the parties was made, and the order form signed, on 19 April 2014. The computer was delivered to Badul's house on 25 April 2014. The reverse of the Order Form contained writing in small print but Badul did not read it.

On or about 2 September 2015, the computer stopped working. (Badul's son, an undergraduate who has taken a course in computers and in Business Law, diagnosed it as suffering from both, hardware and software problems).On 9 September 2015,Badul established telephone contact with a member of the PCLTSSD. The latter took the position that the on-site warranty came into effect only after the Badul had helped him perform he termed "a simple telephone diagnostic" per his instructions over the phone. Badul refused, as it was not a term made known to him by Mr. Stephen when he sold him (Badul) the "3-year on-site total warranty".

Through this telephone conversation with the PCLTSD, Badul also became aware for the first time that the 3-year on-site total warranty covered only hardware (and excluded software). As he had not been informed at the time that he purchased it, that the 3-year on-site warranty was limited to the hardware, Badul rejected this attempt to limit the scope of the warranty. The PCLTSD representative, however, quoted various paragraphs from the PCL Warranty booklet that limited the warranty. However, the PCL Guarantee Booklet had been delivered together with the Portal computer on 25 April 2014, 6 days after Badul had entered into the contract to purchase the computer and the 3-year on-site warranty. On the advice of his son, Badul took the position that the Guarantee Booklet was an irrelevant post-contractual stipulation as his attention had not been drawn to it at the time the contract had been made or earlier. Also on the advice of his son, Badul contends that Stephen (PCL's employee and/or agent) had induced him to enter into the contract to purchase the 3-year on-site warranty by misrepresenting its terms to him.

On the 23 November 2015, Badul was forced to have the computer repaired by Macellent Computer Services Limited. Badul paid $2,150 for the repairs.

Badul wrote to PCL informing it that by reason of its breach of the terms of the 3-year on-site total warranty, he wished to terminate it and to recover the $3,288 that he had paid for it. He also wanted PCL to reimburse him the $2,150 that he had to pay to Macellent Computer Services Limited to repair the computer.

PCL has rejected Badul's claim on the following grounds:

(a)The contract between the parties was contained in the "Order Form" dated 19 April 2014. As Stephen's promise (assuming it had actually been made) had NOT been included in it, Badul was precluded by the parol evidence rule from relying on the same and that Stephen's promise was, in any event, not a term of contract but only a representation that was not incorporated into the contract.

(b)That PCL's Warranty Booklet did not amount to a post-contractual stipulation, in the 21^st century, nobody could reasonably expect to purchase a warranty that was not accompanied by a document (such as the PCL Warranty Booklet) defining its scope;

(c)That the contract for the purchase of the 3-year on-site warranty was not vitiated by misrepresentation.

INSTRUCTIONS

Advise Badul on his legal position.