Stanley (an IT student at Monash College and freelance web designer) approached Jack, an experienced computer technician at Monash Electricals Pty Ltd in Melbourne to repair and upgrade his laptop. Stanley explained to Jack that he needed to repair the cracked screen, replace missing letters from the keyboard, upgrade the RAM and video card, and replace the battery that only lasts 40 minutes if not plugged in.

Jack said he will be able to repair his laptop but insisted they put all the details in a written contract so all would be clear. Jack then went into the office and drafted a contract. Stanley was excited as he had studied business law but had never actually signed a contact before. Jack told Stanley that he would install an anti-virus program (worth $1000) for free if Stanley signed the contract today. Stanley, feeling very happy about the free program, immediately signed the contract without reading it.

The written contract included the following terms:

___________________________________________________________________________________

Beginning on 26 April 2021, the following services will be provided for the customer:

1. Repair cracked screen and replace missing letters from the keyboard

2. Upgrade the RAM and video card

3. Replace the battery

4. This written contract forms the whole of the contract with the customer regarding the repair of the laptop. No other oral statements form part of this contract. The parties agree that the Parol Evidence Rule will apply to this written contract and it is not a partly written and partly oral contract.

5. Limitation clause regarding the Australian Consumer Law: The customer agrees that Monash Electricals will make their best efforts to repair the computers or laptops but will not be liable for breaching any special guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law.

6. The customer agrees to pay the total amount of $5,000.00 for these services.

___________________________________________________________________________________

A week later after the repairs and upgrades were completed, Stanley arrived home and found there was no anti-virus program on his laptop. Later that day in Starbucks, he opened up his laptop in a meeting with a potential web design client and discovered that his laptop had no power. This was because the battery had not been replaced by Jack. Unfortunately, Stanley did not have his laptop cable with him and the potential client informed Stanley that he would be giving the $10,000 contract to somebody who was more organized and reliable.

Stanley argues that Monash Electrical has breached the terms of the service contract and is therefore entitled to damages in relation to the cost of getting anti virus program ($1000), the cost of the battery being replaced properly (estimated cost is $600) and the lost contract for web design (estimated loss is $10,000).

Jack however states the store will not give compensation as there was no breach and that his statement about the free anti virus program is not part of their contract. Additionally, Jack also tells Stanley: "You should have studied much harder when you did Business Law. You probably remember the law about consideration and promissory estoppel but I bet you don't know the law about the parol evidence rule!"

After Stanley leaves the shop, Jack receives a phone call from Bambung. Bambang is one of 5 self-employed freelance programmers who provide IT services to Jack, including writing code and repairing computers. Today Bambung is not happy as he just found out that he is being paid about 50% of the service fees that the other programmers receive from Jack. Jack tells Bambung to calm down or he will fire him and outsource the work to another programmer. Jack hangs up the phone.

Bambung knows you are studying law and seeks your advice. He explains that he was a fresh graduate when he signed a contact to work with Jack. He also says that while he is fluent in computer programming languages, he was not fluent in English when he signed the supply of services contract. At the time he was given the contract, Jack told him he had 5 minutes to read the contract and sign it. Jack also told him his fees were 15% better than the other programmers who worked with Jack.

(b) ACL Consumer Guarantees (10 marks)

(i) Advise Stanley whether the ACL applies to him and whether he can successfully sue for breach of consumer guarantees.

(ii) Consider the exemption clause and advise Stanley if he has any remedies under the ACL.