Two widget producing companies, Aussie Style Pty Ltd (AS) and Verity Owl Pty Ltd (VO), engaged Vestales Pty Ltd (V), to use or supply acid for processing their widgets. V used and supplied the acid purchased from Redux Pty Ltd which, in turn, had purchased the product from the manufacturer. Clause 8 of Redux's standard terms and conditions of sale provided as follows: "EXCLUSIONS OF LIABILITY (a) Unless otherwise agreed in writing the only warranty provided by the company in respect of the goods is that if any provided by the manufacturer of the goods and the liability of the company pursuant to such warranty is limited to an amount receivable by the company from the manufacturer. (b) To the full extent permitted by law: a. The company gives no condition or warranty whatsoever as to the suitability or fitness of the goods for their ordinary or any special use or purpose, and the description of the goods in any contract or any other document shall not import any such conditional warranty on the part of the company. b. All statutory and implied conditions and warranties except as to title are excluded, and c. It is the responsibility of the purchaser to satisfy himself as to the condition, quality, suitability and fitness of the goods for this purpose and the purchaser accepts the goods as they are within the faults or defects (if any)." The acid was found to be too acidic, and the widgets produced from it were unsaleable. AS and VO sued V to recover their losses and V joined Redux as a third party. V relied on conditions of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality implied into its contract with Redux by s 19 of the SOGA. Redux's defense was that cl 8 of its standard terms and conditions of sale expressly negatived the implied conditions. Discuss the validity of Redux's exclusion clause having regard to the SOGA and relevant case law (if any).