Question 5 1.5 pts Lennie drives into a car park. At the entrance is a sign that says "Park at your own risk. Stat Carpark is not responsible for any damage to cars parked whilst in the car park." Lennie parks his car and when he returns discovers that an employee of Stat Carpark has scratched the side of his car while emptying rubbish bins next to his car park. What is Lennie's legal position? Lennie has no claim because Stat Carpark is not responsible for the acts of its employees. Lennie has a claim because the car park cannot avoid its liabilities under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993. Lennie may bring a claim under the Fair Trading Act 1986 alleging unfair contract terms. Lennie has no claim because the notice was clearly displayed when he entered the car park. Question 6 1.5 pts When Marge bought a pedigree hamster at an auction she was asked to sign a document by the seller after the fall of the hammer. She was told that it was a notification of change of ownership of the hamster to the International Federation of Hamster Breeders. Unknown to her the documents contained an exclusion clause stating that the seller was not liable under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 or the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 if the hamster was defective in any way. The hamster was later found to be suffering from a congenital heart defect and had to be put down. The seller: Can rely on the exclusion clause to deny liability because Marge is deemed to have knowledge of the terms and conditions under the principle in L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2KB 394 as she signed the document. Cannot rely on the exclusion clause because Marge did not read it. Can rely on the clause to avoid liability because Marge is a professional hamster breeder and as such the seller can exclude liability under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 as long as the agreement is in writing. Cannot rely on the clause because the terms and conditions are not part of the contract. Question 7 1.5 pts Which of these statements regarding misrepresentation in terms of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 is accurate? It is necessary to prove that the representor intended to mislead the representee. The representee cannot sue for a misrepresentation unless they have taken reasonable steps to investigate the truth of the statement but if they have not had the opportunity to investigate they may sue. It must be reasonable for the representee to have been induced to enter the contract by the misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is actionable regardless of whether the representee acted on it so long as the statement is inaccurate