Robert imports and sells children's toys throughout New South Wales, and so gets a booth to display the children's toys at the trade show held in Sydney in September 2023. Cassandra, who owns a small gift store in Parramatta, was interested in buying children's toys for sale at her gift store. She went to the trade show. Whilst at the trade show, Cassandra visited Robert's display booth. Cassandra tells Robert that she is looking for children's toys for sale at her gift shop during the Christmas season. Robert shows her a range of remote-control toy cars. Robert assures Cassandra that this product is sure to be popular with kids and make a perfect gift at any time of the year. Cassandra thinks that these toy cars will sell well in her store, particularly between the months October and December, just before Christmas. When she looks at the price list and finds the toy cars are $50 each, she is disappointed as she thinks she will not be able to make enough profit if she buys them at that price. She asks Robert whether he would be interested in selling her the toy cars at $30 each. Robert says this price would only be alright if Cassandra buys bulk of 500 cars. After some consideration Cassandra decides she will order 500 toy cars at $30 each. Before signing the sales order, Cassandra remembers that some toy cars have been banned by Product Safety Australia as they do not comply with child safety standards. She asks Robert about this and Robert tells her there are no particular bans that apply to this range of toy cars. Cassandra then signs the sales order, which states that the toy cars will be delivered within 3 weeks of the order being signed.

As it turns out, there is a strike by workers at the manufacturer's toy factory. The factory is shut down for two weeks and work comes to a stop. The toy cars are not delivered until late December, after the Christmas selling season is over. Further only 300 toy cars are delivered. Robert insists that Cassandra will have to pay $50 each for them because the number is smaller than was agreed to. However, Cassandra does not want to accept delivery, or to pay for the toy cars at all. Cassandra doesn't think they will sell now because the season is over. More seriously, she has discovered that the toy cars are in fact of a kind that is banned by Product Safety Australia because the paint used has a high lead content and is therefore a risk to children. Robert says he knew about that ban, but he did not think it applied to this particular range of toy cars.

1. if the disclaimer is term of contract, Is Cassandra required to accept the toy cars and pay for them under contract law? Why or why not? In your answer you should consider whether Cassandra has any grounds to avoid performing her part of the agreement (please determine what issues, law ( similar cases or any support legal laws) , application, and conclusion) please see attached for sample how this case should be done

Crop SCHOOL am.westernsydney.edu.au:555/stream.sdp Issue 1: is Ash entitled to a refund? Law: It is difficult to establish that a verbal representation or promise made during negotiations was intended to become a term of the contract. According to the parole evidence rule: ..where a contract is reduced to writing, where the contract appears in the writing to be entire, it is presumed that the writing contains all the terms of it and evidence will not be admitted of any previous or contemporaneous agreement which would have the effect or varying in any way... This means that, in the event of an inconsistency between a written term of an apparently complete contract and a verbal representations or promise, the Court will favour the written term and disregard the verbal representation or promise. It applies only if the written contract appears to be a complete record of the agreement. If the court decides that the verbal representation or promise was intended to be a term of the contract the court can rule that the complete contract consists of the written agreement plus the verbal representation or promise and the parole evidence rule will not apply. However, consider collateral contract: Representor (maker of statement) must have intended the promises be legally binding Representee (person to whom statement is made) must have entered into main contract on basis of the statement and his/her reliance on it Terms of the collateral contract must not be inconsistent with terms of main contract Van Den Esschert v Chappel [1960] Chappel agreed to purchase a house from Van. Before signing the written contract, Chappel asked Van if the house was free from any infestation of white ants and Van assured him it was. The house turned out to be infested with white ants and Chappel sued Van for breach of contract. Was Van's assurance a term of the contract? The court decided that the parole evidence rule did not apply. The written contract made no reference at all to white ants so that complete agreement consisted of the written contract plus the verbal assurance. Conclusion: she would be entitled to a refund