This exercise is based on End-of-Chapter case "Zippy Print Enterprises Ltd. v. Pawliuk, 1994 CanLII 1756 (BC CA)". The defendants expressed interest in purchasing a Zippy Print franchise. They were presented promotional materials and met with a Zippy Print representative who told them that Zippy Print would conduct an in depth market survey and feasibility study and investigate the market and competition in Prince George. The defendants were also assured that they would receive substantial support in training, in advertising, and in office management and that the purchasing of supplies would be done at a significantly reduced price through Zippy Print. These representations were incorrect, but the defendants relied upon them in making their decision to enter the franchise. From the very beginning the gross sales were not as high as had been represented in the pro-forma and the cost of sales was much higher. The franchise ran into cash flow problems and almost immediately fell behind in its payments to Zippy Print. Once the arrears exceeded $50,000, Zippy Print terminated the licence agreement and sued for the arrears. The defendants counterclaimed alleging that the representations contained in the "pro-forma" statement and the representations regarding gross sales and cost of sales were made negligently. The plaintiffs responded that the exclusion clause built into the contract between the parties excused liability for any misrepresentation. The exclusion clause stated that there were no representations other than those contained on the written agreement itself, but this provision had not been specifically brought to the attention of the purchasers. Explain the arguments available to both parties. Were representations made that were subsequently relied upon? Must a party who wishes to limit its liability have to bring those limitations to the attention of the opposite party? What remedies might be sought by the defendants in this case?