Pauline graduated from the KL Horticultural College with a major in floristry. Immediately after graduating, she set up her own cut flower business ("Blossoms"). In early 2017, things were going well,andshewas thinking about expanding the business. At that very time, she met an old friend, Daniel Sloan, who was an accountant and financial adviser. They discussed Pauline's expansion plans,andDaniel quickly offered to review her financial situation and prepared a business plan free of charge, "as a gift to an old buddy". As Pauline was financially ignorant and needed expert guidance, she accepted his offer and gave him her financial records.

A month later, in March 2017, they met again. After Daniel had prepared some financials for Pauline and had researched the cut flower market, he felt that Pauline was in a sound position to expand. He recommended that she borrows money to set up a store in a trendy part of town. Pauline trusted her friend and decided to act on the advice. In January 2018, she borrowed $30,000 from Eastpac Credit, a small credit union that provided a loan and overdraft facilities. Eastpac relied on the financial statements prepared by Daniel. With him, keeping an eye on her, she signed a five-year lease, bought some equipment and hired a firm to set up a web page.

Then things went sour. Daniel admitted he had not adequately factored in her pre-existing debts, had underestimated the significant establishment costs associated with setting up a business in the area and had only just learned of the extent to which online florists had eroded the traditional retail market. He advised Pauline to terminate the lease and inform Eastpac that she would be unable to repay the loan. Paulineis toldshe may have to pay six month's rental to terminate theleaseon the property ($20,000) and she has already spent $7500 of her own money on the webpage and other costs. Eastpacis facedwith significant losses as much of the loan was unsecured.

Advise PaulineandEastpac about their prospects of success in an action against Daniel in tort. Do they have anactionunderAustralian Consumer Law?