TRACT TERMS, PERFORMANCE AND BREACH - THE FINE PRINT Tom and Sheila were in the market for a reliable used pick-up truck to drive in a small northern Ontario town in the winter months. They stopped into Slick Motors and talked to the salesperson Baltar. Baltar showed them a black 2016 Ford F-150 pickup truck with off-road maximum traction tires, step bars, and a front push bar. Tom and Sheila said that they were looking for a truck that was going to be very reliable for the forthcoming winter months to get them to and from work. Baltar told them that the Ford F-150 was what they were looking for because it "came with low kilometres on it" and "if anything went wrong in the first ninety (90) days, Slick Motors would fix it without charge." Tom and Sheila asked how much and Baltar told them $29,999. Tom and Sheila said they were looking to only spend a maximum of $25,000. Baltar invited them into the showroom for a coffee while he talked with his manager to see what he could do for them. About 10 minutes later, Baltar came back with a written sales document. He sat down with Tom and Sheila and showed them the price of $27,999 written into the document. He said he was able to get them $2,000 off the sticker price and that he would throw in free of charge Weather Tech digitally fit floor liner mats, which regularly would cost them an extra $500. Baltar told Tom and Sheila he had really tried to get the price down for them, but this was as low as his manager would go. After a brief discussion Tom and Sheila signed the "Agreement of Purchase" document without reading all the terms and conditions on the back. One of those terms was as follows: This Agreement of Purchase between the undersigned purchasers and Slick Motors shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties and there are no representations or warranties other than those expressly stated herein. Another term in the written document said that the Ford F-150 was being sold on an "as is" basis. About a month after purchasing the truck, Sheila almost slid right through an intersection when the brake pedal went soft and went right to the floor as she tried to brake for a stop sign in the rain. Tom took the truck into Slick Motors service. The mechanic told Tom that the front and back brake pads were very thin and would have to all be replaced. Also, he told Tom that the one disc would have to be re-ground. The mechanic told Tom that the total cost of repairs would be $225 for parts and $850 for labour. Tom asked to see Baltar. He said to Baltar that they had agreed that anything that went wrong with the pick-up truck in the first ninety days was covered. Baltar said that was before they signed a written Agreement of Purchase and got $2,000 knocked off the price. Tom and Sheila are upset they were not told about the condition of the brakes when they bought the truck. Questions 1. Was the statement by Baltar about Slick Motors covering the cost of repairs for 90 days a misrepresentation? If so, why is it a misrepresentation? If not, why not? Make sure you discuss all the elements of misrepresentation and how they apply or do not apply on the facts of this case. 2. Does the term cited in the case present a problem for Tom and Sheila? If so, based on contract law, why does it represent a problem? Make sure you fully discuss the rule that applies and explain why it applies referencing the facts